Black Pastors: If Gay Marriage Wins, Martin Luther King Died in Vain

black pastors

 

If President Obama was expecting full support from the black community for his relentless push for gay marriage, he just got a loud and clear response:

No way.

At a recent rally, a large group of black pastors voiced their strong opposition to gay marriage.

The rally was held against the backdrop of the current battle being fought in Michigan, where a state ban on gay marriage was overturned by Federal District Judge Bernard Friedman in March.

The ruling was immediately condemned by several black pastors, including Rev. Dr. Roland A. Caldwell:

“Judge Friedman has negated the vote of 2.7 million voters in the State of Michigan. Moreover, he has said to the almost 70 percent of Black citizens who voted in favor of marriage protection that our voting rights are no longer protected. Abraham Lincoln, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr and our forefathers apparently died in vain.”

Strong words.

The case is now on appeal to the Sixth Circuit, and 110 black pastors have entered the legal battle by filing an amicus curiae brief with the federal appeals court, in which they argue that Michigan’s ban on gay marriage should be reinstated.

The pastors also strongly condemn the lie that the gay marriage movement shares a common moral footing with the civil rights movement.

“The fact that American media or other factions erroneously characterize the traditional meaning of ‘marriage’ as being on par with the civil rights deprivations of Black Americans does not make it so.  Comparing the dilemmas of same-sex couples to the centuries of discrimination faced by Black Americans is a distortion of our country’s cultural and legal history.”

Read the full story, with video, here.

a

6,842 views

Categories:Marriage Politics

18 thoughts on “Black Pastors: If Gay Marriage Wins, Martin Luther King Died in Vain

  1. Michael says:

    Now that gay couples can legally marry in 19 states, Catholic married couples should file for divorce since their marriages are now meaningless, worthless, pointless, and a sham because gay couples can now legally marry in 19 states.

  2. burston says:

    What Rob Tsinai fails to recognize is that you can’t just decide that you will have a civil right and then criticize others for depriving you of it. That is what the gay marriage proponents have done. Nowhere in the history of mankind has any society ever thought of gay marriage as a civil right.
    Gay marriage is nowhere called a “civil right” in the constitution and the founding fathers would have laughed at the idea. Note this is in contravention to their ideas on slavery – many of the founding fathers realized slavery would eventually have to be eliminated. But gay marriage would have made them laugh.
    So, let’s all name our personal beliefs as “civil rights” and then get our friends to advance those ideas.

    1. Eric Johnson says:

      Our founding fathers created a country where gay marriage could become a reality.

      1. JJ says:

        They would have been horrified, furthermore, they created a Constitutional process that provides for new Amendments, that judges are overstepping their bounds is an understatement. State Constitutional Amendment should not be overridden by Federal Judges since they are foundational Amendments for governments of those states. States which ARE NOT sub divisions of the Federal Government.

      2. Bill says:

        So too did abortion become a reality because the constitution was distorted, not followed.. The founders would see gay marriage as a distortion of their principles as well.

        1. Eric Johnson says:

          How do you know?

  3. Peggy R says:

    Rob Tisinai, you have to first swallow a whole lot of assumptions before you can declare that gay marriage is a civil right that noone has a right to take away. You have to frame the question in a way that snubs reality in order to reach that conclusion. You have to stretch the Loving case which was about two people of the opposite sex but different skin tones, a neglible difference, in order to cover relationships which are fundamentally different. You have to assume that the court was correct in that case to find a civil right to marriage and that they wouldnt have found a different rationale if only they had known what would come of it. It is not the case that everyone has equal rights to marriage. It is something that can be defined and in fact must be defined and limited in some way or else it becomes so open as to lack all definition. Something without definition is not really anything. You have to follow the logic of your own argument to see that if marriage is a civil right then no definition of it can be legal and that includes defining it as between two people or defining it as having to include a sexual component. Once one part of definition is overturned there is no logical argument for setting any limits on the possible permutations that must also be considered marriage and I don’t have to invoke incest or beastiality at all to make that case. The hash and chaos that consenting adults will soon make of marriage will be enough to prove the point and in short order. You only need to look at our culture where it is now to see where this is headed. Marriage must be defined as it has always been understood or else it is nothing. Its an either or thing whether you like it or not.

  4. Rob Tisinai says:

    Martin Luther King did not live and die so that the majority could vote on the civil rights of the minority.

    That should be obvious.

    1. Bill says:

      @Rob. Would you agree that the reverse of your statement would be just as obvious and true. I would also like an explanation on how marriage is a “civil right”. Voting against so called same sex marriage is not the same as voting for segregation. That, to me , is obvious.

    2. Daniel says:

      A moral wrong is not a civil right. *That* should be obvious.

      1. jimbob says:

        The issue is civil marriage and equal application of the law, Daniel. Your view that 2 consenting adults of the same sex, both born gay, cannot have state recognition of their relationship because it offends your sense of personal morality will not get you anywhere in court. It’s a bit ironic for these pastors to declare their outrage against a judicial interpretation of our great Constitution almost 60 years to the date that the Supreme Court unanimously ruled inequality in application of education resources to be unconstitutional. As Judge Jones, a George W. Bush appointee, stated when declaring Pennsylvania’s ban on same sex marriage to be unconstitutional, ” We are a better people than what these laws represent.” I am sure Judge Jones would have said the same about laws promoting racial segregation.

    3. Eric Johnson says:

      Rob, excellent point.

  5. Bern M. (fellow Domer) says:

    Thanks, John, interesting post. I think, however, that the Federal judiciary has a long history of overturning state laws that it finds violate the US constitution. The fact that the voters in Michigan put this law on the books does not mean that it cannot be found in violation of our Federal constitution.

    I think you would agree that the voters/legislature of a state would not succeed in re-instituting racial segregation laws, even if the majority of voters were in favor of such laws.

    I am in complete agreement that those of us in favor of same sex marriage make a big mistake by comparing that struggle to the struggle of African Americans to secure their rights. Bad idea!

    1. Dan says:

      I’m not fully conversant in marriage law per se, but I do believe that states, not the federal government, issue marriage licenses.

      That being the case, I don’t understand how the feds can overturn legislation concerning a state’s issuance of marriage licenses, as it’s not their purview. Every citizen of s atate isn’t entitled to a marriage license being granted to them, I don’t believe. There are minimum requirements, if I recall having applied fro mine 20 some years ago.

      Anyway, FWIW.

      Thanks

      1. Stojef says:

        Dan:

        You are correct that states may set their own laws regarding marriage, just as those laws don’t trample on the constitutional rights of others. If the state of Michigan wanted to say that anyone seeking a marriage license had to wait 35 days and sing a song (far-fetched) at the clerk’s office, no one’s rights are violated. But if the state of Michigan said that once a couple marries, the wife becomes the husband’s property, even in a constitutional amendment, it would be found unconstitutional.

        1. Dan says:

          I don’t believe that there’s an emumerated Constitutional right to marriage, is there?

          Again, anyone petitioning for a marriage license from a state must meet said state’s requiremenst for receipt. You have to apply for one. I don’t have to apply for things that are righst granted by the Constitution.

      2. Rich says:

        Dan, it’s called the power of the 14th Amendment and due process clause, not to mention the full faith and credit clause which stipulates that states will recognize the interstate laws shared by all 50 states. Dan, the constitutional guarantees of equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness trump state law when state law discriminates against a particularized class of people. The federal government recognizes gay marriage because it comports with constitutional protections. State law cannot supersede federal guarantees of equal protection under the law. If it did, we would still have racial inequality in all areas including marriage. The black ministers you trumpet have forgotten the very constitutional protections they enjoy but now wish to deny to gays. But, their very victory in this arena will be the cause of their loss in their Church stands on marriage equality.

        1. Mr-A says:

          The definition of “equality” has become so broad as to not mean anything. A man and woman can have equal rights but that does not make them the same. A man does not have the right to be a “Mother” and stretching the “right” to change his gender still does not make him a mother. By the same token, a woman cannot become a father by legislative decree or court decree. If we really stretch this, which is happening every day, why, pray tell, does a brother not have the right to marry his brother or sister or mother or father? How about polygamy? When all the moral boundaries are gone, what is the moral boundary? This country was founded on the fact of “granted by our Creator” and not that rights are granted by Government. Government-granted rights are NOT inalienable, they change with politics to expand a support base.
          We already are at the crossroads, pedophiles are listed as protected from discrimination. When will they be protected from being prosecuted for their acts because it is ‘discrimination’?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.