The decision by the National Board of the NAACP to endorse same sex marriage has caused several local officers as well as members of the National Board to resign.
The board approved the resolution on May 21—on the heels of President Obama’s endorsement of same sex marriage—despite the fact that the issue wasn’t even on the NAACP’s formal agenda.
“Clearly it’s an evolving conversation,” said Chairwoman Roslyn Brock. It may not have been on a formal agenda, but she believed that it was certainly a relevant issue of civil rights. “Some may never be able to come to terms with the resolution, and that’s fine,” she added.
The NAACP decided to support same sex marriage on the grounds that marriage equality is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Head of the Indiana NAACP Barbara Bolling said that the resolution created debate right away in her state. It even forced one of her branch’s presidents to quit. “It’s an emotional thing, it really is,” Bolling said.
A minister who led the NAACP chapter in Schenectady, N.Y. also resigned, as did National Board member Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr., who has always been the organization’s most prominent and outspoken member when it came to opposing same sex marriage.
9 Comments
Very impressive.
The witness of these NAACP leaders in the face of the Obama Gay Marriage Cave is important, and will have widely-resonating effects throughout the upcoming campaign.
One of those effects will be the defeat of Barack Obama in his bid for reelection to the office of the President of the United States.
While I admire folks for standing up for their principles and resigning from the NAACP, I'm also saddened to see them leaving an organization that needs sane voices.
I get the impression that much of the push for redefining marriage is based on animus toward people of faith, toward marriage and toward society as a whole.
While I can acknowledge gay folks may have remnants of hostility due to past discrimination, it is wise to cast these feelings aside once the objective has been achieved.
People of good faith tried to acknowledge gay relationships through civil unions. But these same civil unions were then used to make legal arguments for redefining marriage. This was a betrayal of trust.
The public purpose of marriage is to unite children with their mother and father. No other union can do that.
More will resign, they should be outraged!
Barb, if I am correct, doesn't NOM oppose civil unions for same sex couples? If so, wouldn't NOM's action not be in line with people of good faith?
I would agree with you that marriage helps to unite children with their biological mother and father. However, it is not the sole purpose for marriage and therefore should not be argued as a reason to deny certain people the right to marry.
Woody,
You don't get it and never will, your kind is not prevented from marrying just as long you following the rules like everyone else ( marrying soneone of the oppposite sex all that is required). Or, don't "marry" at all. why is that you don't want to marry the opposite sex but want to use the word marriage for the same sex coupling? Your kind want to behave like heterosexuals but at the same time you don't. I call that confusion, delusion, and mentally disfunctional. What do you call it?
Secondly you talk about fairness and discrimination between homos and heteros, tell your sad to God (your create)! “Why are males not like females that suck?” No it doesn’t, it is just the way things are, some things we must accept, some things we must treat differently. We also must be able to distinguish (discrimination) from what can and will hurt us before it does (like homosexuality and SSM).
Accept what you have no control of and move on with your life, live within your means (capabilities) and stop trying to play god…
Sorry correction:
Secondly you talk about fairness and discrimination between homos and heteros, tell your sad (story) to God (your create)! “Why are males not like females that sucks?” No it doesn’t, it is just the way things are, some things we must accept, some things we must treat differently. We also must be able to distinguish (discrimination) from what can and will hurt us before it does (like homosexuality and SSM).
Accept what you have no control of and move on with your life, live within your means ( capabilities) and stop trying to play god…
For those who don't think in-depth 'equality is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution' means marriage is allowed for everyone.
But minors of certain ages are always excluded from obtaining a marriage license, by all who agree with the 14th amendment. So, right there, there's an instance of no Right to marriage. . .
We've heard the argument before: Why shouldn't a person be "able" (in Obama's terminology) to marry the person of their choice?
This argument starts from an assumption - that people are 'able' (meaning allowed through a marriage license) to marry the person of their choice (perhaps even on-line). Yet that is not a true assumption.
Civil marriage, by definition, always has some restrictions as to what type of person one can marry.
1. There's the obvious restriction as to age of the person (you cannot marry your age 5 son to someone's age 4 daughter, like in India), having to do with consent (sometimes of the parents, depending on the State).
2. There's also the restriction of blood-relation, depending on the State.
3. There's also the restriction to by consent, and even
4. a restriction for immigration purposes that the couple live together for 2 years and that their pattern of behavior is like a couple that shows commitment to the marriage (that you find 2 toothbrushes in their rest-room, etc.). I do not agree with immigration granting Permanent Residence status to a civil marriage partner. I think a) allows for manipulation of the citizenship process (which is an altogether different matter), and b) leaves out friendships which would also like that federal benefit, and propels the advocacy for same-sex civil marriage. . .
5. Another restriction for civil marriage is the opposite-sex requirement (without inspection, but the marriage can be annulled if later found to lie in the application form).
Some people who call themselves 'progressive' think that liberty in civil marriage is a new concept. It isn't. Liberty in marriage was the starting point. The American Indians could 'steal' a wife from another tribe - the 'i will because i can' morality so prevalent today in the USA.
That's not progressive. It is prehistoric.
6. Anyway. . . One restriction missing is the requirement of a blood-test in order to disallow certain persons to marry by the State the person of their choice (but that would mean the State is actually serious about regulating civil marriage, which it isn't. The State is only serious about collecting the fees associate with marriage and divorces; the more - the better.)
Equality, literally, means you are allowed the same rights as other people - that is, you abide by all the official restrictions and categories just like everyone else. It has nothing to do with it being 'traditional', and has everything to do with voter's opinion.
But, able to marry the person of your choice? Yes, you make vows before God and PRESTO!, you are married. The mythological Adam and Eve didn't even have witnesses or a government to provide forms, or parents for that matter, and they joined and became 'one flesh'.
Marriage is essentially sacred or philosophical. But for the purpose of granting State benefits to the partnership, government has to regulate it.
7. I was surprised to learn even some types of mental-retards are able to marry by the State. In some States, any two adults can get a marriage license or a civil union license (marriage by another name, without federal benefits), if not blood-related.
Judes will never order is licenses for 'gay' couples, because no one knows for sure who they are. One cannot inspect for 'gayness' or 'gladness'. People can fake that, but now with RNA testing, we cannot fake gender.
Extending marriage licenses to same-sex couples does away with one reason for the regulation of marriage in the first place.
Minors can use the same arguments to be able to marry, under the 14th Amendment, and so can people who advocate for polygyny, polyandry (2 or more husbands to take care of the laun-dry?) or group marriage.
Admit the traditional definition of civil marriage (per its restrictions) is a practical one, or go ahead and learn by experience why it was defined so in the first place, and government regulated.
Imagine a society where there is no regulation of civil marriage. It's everyone on its own, becomes a matter of 'taste', or church controlled once again. And a marriage in one village/city is not recognized in another. What a mess when it comes to orphans, child support or alimony. Everyone knows it is best to stay single. Governments has made it so that it doesn't really pay to be married. In essence, governments have annulled civil marriage benefits, leaving only the word. Now, even the word is wanted.
The "mythological" Adam and Eve?
No.
The "mythological" modern mind, consumed by the fantastical creation myth that nothing gathered itself up into an infinitely dense point mass, exploded, and coalesced randomly into all that is, including little typing pinkies exchanging the truth for the best thinking of the guys who brought us dark matter and dark energy, in order to bring their gravitational books into balance; an important fix, considering the 99% deficit between theory and observation.
And may I add to Little Man's post by saying that all rights stem from the individual not couples or any other group of people. You can't have a right to something that requires another person to perform.