The NAACP’s board of directors voted Saturday to endorse the right to same-sex marriage, adding the influential voice of the country’s leading black civil rights organization to a debate that has divided the black community.
The decision has political implications for President Barack Obama, who needs an enthusiastic turnout from black voters to help him win re-election in November but angered some African-American church pastors with his announcement this month that he believes gays and lesbians should have the right to marry.
The NAACP now presents itself as a counterbalance to the influence of the traditionally socially conservative black church. It can also help establish closer ties between blacks and gays, two of Obama’s most loyal constituencies.
Some pro-Republican conservative evangelical activists have said Obama’s announcement gives them an unusual opportunity to deflate enthusiasm among black voters for re-electing the country’s first black president, who tends to win more than 90 percent support in that community.
“Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law,” NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous said in a statement released Saturday. “The NAACP’s support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people. The well-funded right-wing organizations who are attempting to split our communities are no friend to civil rights, and they will not succeed.”
The Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights group, issued a jubilant statement after the NAACP announcement.
“We could not be more pleased with the NAACP’s history-making vote today, which is yet another example of the traction marriage equality continues to gain in every community,” said HRC president Joe Solmonese. “It’s time the shameful myth that the African-American community is somehow out of lockstep with the rest of the country on marriage equality is retired — once and for all. The facts and clear momentum toward marriage speak for themselves.”
Surveys show blacks remain generally uncomfortable with same-sex marriage. A Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll in November found that 58 percent of blacks called same-sex marriage “unacceptable,” while 35 percent said it was “acceptable” in terms of their own values and morals.
More than half of all African-Americans in a new Post-ABC News poll backed the president’s statement in support of marriage, suggesting there may be an opening to for Obama to help push support for gay rights among black Americans.
The resolution approved Saturday states: “The NAACP Constitution affirmatively states our objective to ensure the ‘political, education, social and economic equality’ of all people. Therefore, the NAACP has opposed and will continue to oppose any national, state, local policy or legislative initiative that seeks to codify discrimination or hatred into the law or to remove the constitutional rights of LGBT citizens. We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Further, we strongly affirm the religious freedoms of all people as protected by the First Amendment. “
Its not about same sex marriage, if you can get more then 50% of any group agree on any poilitical issues then something else is driving the results, lets say same skin color. funny how obama did not support it in 08, and neiter did the NAACP, and now they do.
You’re right Jed, it’s not (just) about same sex marriage. It’s about civil rights, equality, for ALL Americans.
Thats because Obama was leading the polls in 08.
Great news! Thank you NAACP! Let’s keep the momentum going! There will be a lot of comments marginalizing this, but ignore them…they come from people who are frustrated that we our building the foundation for equal rights under the law.
You are building the foundation for immorality under the law. Your foundation is built on sinking sand. The Bible says in the last days wrong will be called right. It’s incredible how many Bible prophecies are falling into place. It’s an exciting time to be a Christian.
The religious right claims Jesus hates commies, gays and sinners. That’s funny. From what I’ve read in the Bible, he hung around with drunks, hookers and all kinds of sinners and never condemned anybody …. oh, except for the religious right of his day!
righting wrongs is always exciting and so it will be when the wrong of treating people differently in this country will be righted!
Nothing more immoral in America than to try to deny a citizen equal rights under the law.
Your “Christian” rationale to be a bigot reminds me of the Taliban; I see no difference.
Pray on John 3:17
Does that go for convicted felons too? They’re still citizens!
As far as I am concerned, a felon serving time forfeits the rights of citizenship. However, once that sentence is served…well their debt to society has been served also.
So they regain all their rights? How about the right to own firearms? You really want a convicted armed robber getting that right back?
True enough…but homosexuals have broken no laws so why shouldn’t they enjoy the same rights as a heterosexual person that has broken no laws?
you really have to stretch yourself to make a cogent argument, don’t you?
… or even a non- cogent one apparently.
lol. exactly
Save your bigot argument for the kids and the ignorant. It won’t work with me. By its very definition you are the bigot.
from its very definition, you are not Christian.
Now you are the very one making a judgment which you posted against doing. Can you say hypocrite? Typical liberal, their rules are only for everyone but them.
I’m not that liberal. And I’m straight.
You seem to have a strong need to categorize people. Or maybe those are the only talking points you have?
Either way, your discussion is weak.
Talk about weak. Is that all you got?
Wow a what post! Really hard hitting!!
And what about the “Christian” rules you say you care about cp444? Didn’t Jesus say something about “turning the other cheek”? You tell people not to judge you and then you judge them. Which is worse a “hypocrite” or a “Christian hypocrite”?
So tell me jd. Did Jesus say that or was it merely men writing hundreds of years later as you just claimed? You can’t have it both ways. And btw read the rest of the text on judging rather than some misquote that is always thrown out there by the homosexual crowd. Kinda reminds you of the famous shellfish quote you’re famous for.
Sorry cp444 until you answer some of the questions asked of you I don’t have the inclination to answer to many more of yours.
And what would that “famous shellfish quote” be cp?
If the issue is really one of religion, then why do you make it about politics at every turn ?
I think most people can see what real hypocrisy is, because you provide such consistent and rich examples of it.
Since when is the NAACP interested in the civil rights for ALL Americans? This is purely aganda driven. They received their marching orders from our first gay president, and they march in lock-step. Next we’ll see the Black Panthers endorse it, but then, they ARE gay!
The first gay President was James Buchanan. The current President is not gay, he is just at peace with the Constitution’s call for equal treatment under the law.
That’s not what Newsweek said, and I’m just quoting them. Are you saying that Newsweek lies?
Without quotes or sourcing it’s you opinion.
What friggin’ part of NEWSWEEK can you not grasp?????????
That is what YOU would call a source! Perhaps it’s time for you to step away from the computer and expand your obviously limited sources of information!!! It’s only been front page news in the entire national media!
Jon when you made your original post you used no quotes, no reference,
no source. To then get upset that people questioned your post and then
pointed out that the use of quotes or references is necessary is rather
childish. I don’t read Newsweek, Time, USNews and World Report, etc…and to question my sources for news without knowing me is rather sad. I stay up on current events everyday of the week. Just because I don’t use the same sources as you does not make my knowledge any less insightful than yours.
It would take a lot more than your post to upset me. I tend to forget
that some only get their limited news form sites like this. I don’t
think BDN covered Newsweek’s cover, but the entire rest of the national
media did!
And just so there is no more misinterpretation on your part, I do not think obama is gay. I do think he supports the gay agenda (when it suites him).
Many politicians are like Chameleons changing positions to suit their political need. President Obama is no different then most politicians.
On that we agree!
Certainly not something you would ever do ;)
Care to back up you statement with proof cp444?
To be honest, I haven’t been following all the news here much this week. However on this Sunday morning I can tell you without a doubt that this is the most pathetic comment I’ve read on any story all week. Every sentence builds toward a sad crescendo of pure ignorance and intolerance. Congratulations! Your number 1!
In case you’re unaware, there are gay African Americans.
No Kidding? Really? And they are all the NAACP cares about!
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”
“A house divided against itself can not stand.” – Abraham Lincoln
(Isn’t this fun!)
In the terms President Lincoln was using it, no it isn’t funny.
You need to save up your pennies and buy a sense of humor! I was referring to us both quoting. That’s why I said FUN, not FUNNY!
If you can’t figure that out, you’re more pathetic that even I thought!
Jon your repeated use of insults is very disturbing.
Can’t take your own medicine can you.
Please post quotes that show I have called anyone “pathetic”, “ignorant”, etc….as you and others have just in this thread cp444. Go ahead prove your statement is true, I double dog dare you.
I said her post was pathetic not her. You’re sounding desperate.
Come on cp444 you made a claim…now prove it.
gay president?
That’s what Newsweek called him! I was quoting them. I figured all the Leftists here would know Newsweek.
Quoting without quotes or providing the source is not quoting.
Are you for real? THE SOURCE WAS NEWSWEEK’S FRONT COVER! Got it now?
Jon when you made your original post you used no quotes, no reference, no source. To then get upset that people questioned your post and then pointed out that the use of quotes or references is necessary is rather childish.
It would take a lot more than your post to upset me. I tend to forget that some only get their limited news form sites like this. I don’t think BDN covered Newsweek’s cover, but the entire rest of the national media did!
“Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law,” NAACP
President Benjamin Todd Jealous said in a statement released Saturday.
That pretty much covers it . . .
Sounds good to me. We cannot allow hate groups, like NOM, to divide us. As minorities, we need to stand together in solidarity against hate and discrimination. Partnerships, like these, are vital to achieving Marriage Equality for all loving, committed couples.
Equality for “all people” exists already–it is the extra rights to which there is objection.
what are these extra rights?
The right to change the definition of marriage that has stood for over 2000 years so a special interest group can validate their lifestyle and feel better about themselves.
….
Modern marriage in America does not fit the definition of 2000 years ago where fathers could sell their daughters to the highest bidder and 13 YO girls were married to older men against their will.
Do you belong to the Taliban per chance? They would like us all to adhere to the 2000 year old definition of marriage!
So your position is that anyone whose religious views differ from yours are wrong.
Sounds like your the one who follows the doctrine of the Taliban!
No, my position is that EVERYONE should have freedom of religion, even those whose religions teach the opposite of what I believe and my church teaches.
If your church (or any church) does not believe in gay marriage I believe they should never be forced to perform one or to condone one. The proposed law guarantees they will have those rights.
That is the opposite of the position that demands that all churches must obey the beliefs of some churches, even when those beliefs go against their own teachings and beliefs — in other words the current law that is anti freedom of religion and forbids churches that wish to do so, their right to marry all of their parishioners that they wish to.
No church will be forced to perform a SSM, as far as I’ve seen. How does a church condone SSM?
Many churches, including mine, have published formal doctrine supporting gay marriage and offering to perform those marriages anywhere they are legal. They will perform a religious ceremony celebrating a couple’s commitment in places where the law forbids them from following their own doctrine.
because He is a LOVING God…
<3
Oddly enough, that’s YOUR view.
Stop telling my church what to do.
Careful Mountain Man, the free expression of opinion is only sanctioned here if it’s the “correct” opinion!
That’s obviously not true. What you want is the right to not be challenged.
Move to Iran if that’s what you need so badly.
Wrong.
what extra rights? please explain. thank you.
The NAACP has never been for equal rights for ALL Americans. They have been the premier leader in reverse discrimination since the day of their inception.
“We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Further, we strongly affirm the religious freedoms of all people as protected by the First Amendment.”
Even their resolution contradicts itself. If they truly strongly affirm the religious freedoms of all people as protected by the First Amendment why would they support a law that forces church’s to abandon their doctrine and beliefs.
The sole purpose of this resolution is a political ploy to convince African-Americans who have overwhelming always been against SSM to not only support the SSM law but to support Obama for another term.
What a disgusting comment. It isn’t racism to fight against racism. It isn’t intolerant to refused to accept intolerance.
No one is forcing a church to do anything. This is about civil law.
I have no problem with the fight against racism. I do however have a problem with reverse racism or reverse discrimination, however you care to phrase it in the name of fighting racism.
You are wrong however when you claim that no one is forcing a church to do anything. When you pass a law legalizing SSM you are forcing churchs to abandon their doctrines and established beliefs. To do so for a special interest group is an even greater injustice.
The NAACP is asking the African-American community to turn away from their established beliefs and they are doing it solely for political reasons and nothing more.
No, you’re wrong. The law wouldn’t force churches to do anything. Does the state force churches to marry couples of different religions or force them to allow divorcees to remarry?
Are you so naive to believe that once this law is passed that a suit for violation of civil rights will not be filed against the first church that refuses to conduct a SSM.
It has already passed in other places and there have been no such consequences. Further, the language of the referendum specifically protects religious freedom, so you are in fact wrong.
First ask yourself why would anyone want to be married in a church that does not welcome or want them sitting in their pews?
Second the law provides protection (just like the one in 2009 that was repealed) to churches, church halls, employees, etc…
So, if there are protections in place, how does one file a claim if the claim is barred from being filed?
The US Constitution would forbid any state law from forcing a church to marry anyone they choose not to.
Do you really think that non Catholics can DEMAND a marriage in the Catholic Church, and have the law back them up if they are refused?
Of course not. The exact same legal protections exist for gay marriage as well.
You put people here in an awkward position.
You force us to decide weather you are ignorant, or a liar, because those are the only two options.
Since I don’t believe that you really don’t know that no church in America can be forced to wed anybody it doesn’t want to, I have to conclude that you’re a liar.
Current law forces churches that DO believe in gay marriage and wish to marry their gay members to adhere to YOUR religious views in direct contradiction of their own beliefs.
Why do you think this is OK, especially when the proposed change to the law specifically says that no church will ever have to marry gays or express any level of acceptance of gay marriage if they do not wish to?
You are supporting religious discrimination!
“reverse racism” is pure fiction.
Stop lying about churches being forced to wed people, nobody’s forcing any church to marry gay people.
i’m wondering if you even know any black people, ever had a black person over for suppah?
The proposed marriage equality law specifically reasserts the rights of all churches to never marry a gay couple or to express any level of acceptance or support for gay marriage. It protects the rights of all churches. This change to the law would protect churches rights to their doctrine and beliefs.
The current law forbidding gay marriage does not allow churches that wish to marry their gay members to do so. Current law forces these churches to abandon their doctrine and beliefs concerning gay marriage.
Talk about contradicting your own claimed values!!! You are supporting laws that discriminate against churches in favor of a change that would eliminate ALL religious discrimination!
… unless of course your entire post was meant in jest and was just an attempt to show how completely and utterly ridiculous and illogical that argument is to begin with.
thank you NAACP
Like the incredible work the NAACP is doing to try to help those of all races out of poverty (even in nearly all white areas of Appalachia where treatment of blacks by local folks is often very poor) this shows the dedication of the NAACP to equal right for ALL Americans.
Funny how, if you are even suspected of being against gay marriage here, you are branded a member of the Taliban!
That must be the latest Democrat talking point on this issue. Just like being against obama’s policies automatically makes you a racist!
Crap like that makes your arguments loose all credibility. Don’t you see that, or are you too blinded by your emotions? Most of you are better than that, some obviously not!
I know…and it is disappointing. I think comparing someone, who believes SSM should be illegal because his/her religion says so, to the Taliban isn’t necessary, but it is apt.
So your position is that anyone who has religious beliefs that differ from yours are wrong.
Sounds like your the one who belongs to the Taliban!
And your position is that your religion trumps all others and you ought to be able to use the law to punish those who don’t believe what you do. What were you saying about the Taliban?
If you are referring to me, I have nothing against religious beliefs. In fact, I applaud them!
Perhaps I should have posted – “Funny how, if you are even suspected of being against gay marriage here (for whatever reason), you are branded a member of the Taliban!”
Calling someone, anyone something as despicable as ‘Taliban’ only shows lack of integrity. It lessens the credibility of the accuser.
Interesting how those that preach for acceptance the loudest, are the least accepting of differing opinions!
No Jon Sheets, my post was not directed to you. My post was in response to Tyke repeatedly inferred that I must be a membert of the Taliban.
“Interesting how those that preach for acceptance the loudest, are the least accepting of differing opinions!” Truer words were never spoken!!
One reference does not = “repeatedly”.
You are proclaiming support for denying religious freedom to anyone who does not agree with you. In that regard you are like the Taliban. FACT
I accept your opinion MM, I don’t accept that you want to infringe your opinion on other people’s civil rights.
Some people seem to be ignoring the “civil” part of “civil marriage” — nothing about religious marriage here. If the state issues a marriage license, it is licensing a “civil” marriage.