Obama endorses gay marriage

[Ronnie Ron]

The majority of the US population now resides in the suburbs (51%). Pew polling shows that they are mostly white, middle-income, independent (not a member of either political party), college-educated, and not regular church-goers. All those sub-groups have a majority support for gay marriage. Your comment about same sex marriage being portrayed in a 'Sodom & Gomorrah' lens certainly applies to fervent Evangelicals, but they are not widely common outside of the Deep South. Outside of the ex-slave states, Evangelicalism is relegated to the low-population rural areas (which are already strongly Republican).

Now, a number of urban black churches may also hold this view of gay marriage, but the President will still get a vast majority of their support in the fall election. And a President gets into the White House via the Electoral College... and there is no way that Mitt Romney can snag urban cities for himself in November. Catholic church-goers are typically Republican, but even a majority of Catholics support same-sex marriage. That being said, I don't see any notable swing with Obama's recent comments on the issue.


Here is a Gallup polls' findings conducted a week ago:



Independent voters (which are mostly suburban) support gay marriage by 17 percentage points. And that trendline is only going higher. Same-sex marriage isn't viewed as a 'liberal' cause - it's now mainstream and supported by a healthy majority of 'moderates'. The only thing you can say is that opposition to same-sex marriage is mostly a 'conservative' cause.

Some of these so called independent voters are not truly independents, they just dont want there names associated with a brand that has takin a large hit over the past decaed, for instance this is a true story, I have a friend of the family and church member that is a army vet(I wont hold that against him LOL), did a tour in afghanistan, he is a straight up Right Winger, claiming to be independant, went up to his truck while the church was in a park having a picnic and he had a Glen Beck book on the passenger seat and was listening to Rush Limbaugh on talk radio, and this is a true story. Now i dont have a PHD or anything like that but i know Bull Snot when i see it. if it quacks like a duck then its a darn duck. So i dont go for all this independant garbage a lot of these folks are claiming.

[Detroitbootybass]

^^^
That goes both ways. Party identification is at an all-time low. People generally don't want to be associated with either group as they both play the same games and both their 'brands' are sullied by the actions, in large part, of the Congressional representatives (and to a smaller extent, state legislatures).

[Ronnie Ron]

Classic!! LOL

[Detroitbootybass]

You guys should also stop assuming the black vote is on lock. Black folks may not vote for Romney, but that doesn't mean they'll show up for Obama again. It isn't new any longer. If black folks aren't specifically moved, they don't show. Latinos already have huge beef over the increase in deportations and the failure of the Dream Act. That's two big ass communities to motivate within 6mos.

I completely agree that the President will have less African-American support in 2012 then he did in 2008. Part of that is what you mentioned, it's no longer novel. Another part would be the inevitable dissatisfaction in the reality of governing that all incumbent Presidents face.

The Latino issues present a small opening to Republicans, but they aren't likely to tone-down their anti-immigration rhetoric which would have enabled them to make some small in-roads. But the lack of Democratic attention paid to the specific hot-button issues among Latinos will likely suppress their vote too.

Obama will still get an overwhelming majority of both electoral groups this November though; just not as high as from back in 2008.

[Dal-Tex]

I might be wrong on Gay marriage. The political shows were going on how TV shows like Will and Grace, Ellen made people more open. Gay marriage reminds me of that movie with Robbin Williams.

[bomb cola]

I might be wrong on Gay marriage. The political shows were going on how TV shows like Will and Grace, Ellen made people more open. Gay marriage reminds me of that movie with Robbin Williams.

Jumanji?

[House4Life]

Watching CNN earlier they were showing how Black Church's main sermon today was what President Obama said and how alot of them are upset with him. One Pastor even went on to say that he's going to stay home and not even vote come Nov?!

On Steve Harvey show the other day they said take all the gay people out of the church and see how big the congregation would be, especially the choirs!

Don Lemon was interviewing Rev Joseph Lowery and he was dropping some serious knowledge! He said he remembers back in the day when Black folks were upset that they put football on Sundays but now black folk can't wait to get out of church to see the games!!

[Detroitbootybass]

Jumanji?

Good Morning, Vietnam?

[fred da warrior]

The follow words are from the Reverend Otis Moss, Senior Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois concerning President Obama’s recent public endorsement of Gay Marriage. The content of the letter is posted in its entirety. Please read and share your thoughts on this cultural and society issue at the forefront of the Black Church in America.
—-
My Brother:
Tell your brethren who are part of your ministerial coalition to “live their faith and not legislate their faith” for the Constitution is designed to protect the rights of all. We must learn to be more than a one-issue community and seek the beloved community where we may not all agree, but we all recognize the fingerprint of the Divine upon all of humanity.

There is no doubt people who are same-gender-loving who occupy prominent places in the body of Christ. For the clergy to hide from true dialogue with quick dismissive claims devised from poor biblical scholarship is as sinful as unthoughtful acceptance of a theological position. When we make biblical claims without sound interpretation we run the risk of adopting a doctrinal position of deep conviction but devoid of love. Deep faith may resonate in our position, but it is the ethic of love that forces us to prayerfully reexamine our position.

The question I believe we should pose to our congregations is, “Should all Americans have the same civil rights?” This is a radically different question than the one you raised with the ministers, “Does the church have the right to perform or not perform certain religious rites.” There is difference between rights and rites. We should never misconstrue rights designed to protect diverse individuals in a pluralistic society versus religious rites designed by faith communities to communicate a theological or doctrinal perspective. These two questions are answered in two fundamentally different arenas. One is answered in the arena of civic debate where the Constitution is the document of authority. The other is answered in the realm of ecclesiastical councils where theology, conscience and biblical mandates are the guiding ethos. I do not believe ecclesiastical councils are equipped to shape civic legislation nor are civic representatives equipped to shape religious rituals and doctrine.

The institution of marriage is not under attack as a result of the President’s words. Marriage was under attack years ago by men who viewed women as property and children as trophies of sexual prowess. Marriage is under attack by low wages, high incarceration, unfair tax policy, unemployment, and lack of education. Marriage is under attack by clergy who proclaim monogamy yet think nothing of stepping outside the bonds of marriage to have multiple affairs with “preaching groupies.” Same-gender couples did not cause the high divorce rate, but our adolescent views of relationships and our inability as a community to come to grips with the ethic of love and commitment did. We still confuse sex with love and romance with commitment.

My father, who is a veteran of the civil rights movement and retired pastor, eloquently stated the critical nature of this election when speaking to ministers this past week who claim they will pull support from the President as a result of his position. He stated, “Our Ancestors prayed for 389 years to place a person of color in the White House. They led over 200 slave revolts, fought in 11 wars, one being a civil war where over 600,000 people died. Our mothers fought and were killed for women’s suffrage, our grandparents were lynched for the civil rights bill of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965…my father never had the opportunity to vote and I believe it is my sacred duty to pull the lever for every member of my family who was denied the right to vote. I will not allow narrow-minded ministers or regressive politicians the satisfaction of keeping me from my sacred right to vote to shape the future for my grandchildren.”

“The institution of marriage is not under attack as a result of the President’s words.”

Gay and lesbian citizens did not cause the economic crash, foreclosures, and attack upon health care. Poor underfunded schools were not created because people desire equal protection under the law. We have much work to do as a community, and to claim the President of the United States must hold your theological position is absurd. He is President of the United States of America not the President of the Baptist convention or Bishop of the Sanctified or Holiness Church. He is called to protect the rights of Jew and Gentile, male and female, young and old, Gay and straight, black and white, Atheist and Agnostic. It should be noted the President offered no legislation, or executive order, or present an argument before the Supreme Court. He simply stated his personal conviction.

If we dare steal away from the noise of this debate, we will realize as a church we are called to “Do justice, live mercy and walk humbly with God.” Gay people have never been the enemy; and when we use rhetoric to suggest they are the source of our problems we lie on God and cause tears to flow from the eyes of Christ.

I am not asking you to change your position, but I am stating we must stay in dialogue and not allow our own personal emotional prejudices or doctrines to prevent us from seeing the possibilities of a beloved community.

November is fast approaching, and the spirits of Ella Baker, Septima Clarke, Fannie Lou Hammer, Rosa Parks, A. Phillip Randolph, James Orange, Medgar Evers and Martin Luther, King Jr. stand in the balcony of heaven raising the question, “Will you do justice, live mercy and walk humbly with our God?” Emmitt Till and the four little girls who were assassinated in Alabama during worship did not die for a Sunday sermonic sound bite to show disdain for one group of God’s people. They were killed by an evil act enacted by men who believed in doctrine over love. We serve in ministry this day because of a man who believed in love over doctrine and died on a hill called Calvary in a dusty Palestinian community 2,000 years ago. Do not let the rhetoric of this debate keep you from the polls, my friend.

Asking you to imagine a beloved community, your brother and friend,

Otis Moss, III
Senior Pastor
Trinity UCC

[SuzanneT]

Thanks Fred. That was a very eloquent and moving letter.

[DeesKo]

Thanks Fred... very moving comments there.

At risk of betraying my heathen tendencies, that letter is probably the most well thought out & encouraging thing I've ever seen come out of a church.

Looking for a link now to pass on to some of my southern baptist family that need to read this....


probably a couple of times.


but still won't get it unless their pastor tells them too.


oops, did that slip out

[Dal-Tex]

Im surprised no one has pointed out an obvious conflict with Gay marriage and that is a person is not supposed to have sex before getting married. Another problem is religions consider certain behavior a sin. So now the devil is right but Jesus was wrong. Jesus just wasn't with the times. If it says it's a sin in the Bible and you are supposed to stay a virgin then why do you think it's right? Because people say so. The devil likes deception. Are you easily deceived embracing sin? What's next? Genetic engineered sex slaves?

[bomb cola]

Im surprised no one has pointed out an obvious conflict with Gay marriage and that is a person is not supposed to have sex before getting married. Another problem is religions consider certain behavior a sin. So now the devil is right but Jesus was wrong. Jesus just wasn't with the times. If it says it's a sin in the Bible and you are supposed to stay a virgin then why do you think it's right? Because people say so. The devil likes deception. Are you easily deceived embracing sin? What's next? Genetic engineered sex slaves?

Tell us, O Wise One, where Jesus mentions homosexuals, and says we should stay virgins until married.

And, YES!!!! Clearly, Allowing two people of the same sex to marry puts us on the path to genetically engineered sex slaves. Gat Damn!!! You are a smaht one.

[SuzanneT]

Tell us, O Wise One, where Jesus mentions homosexuals, and says we should stay virgins until married.

And, YES!!!! Clearly, Allowing two people of the same sex to marry puts us on the path to genetically engineered sex slaves. Gat Damn!!! You are a smaht one.

I don't know about you, but I cackled out LOUD.

[DeesKo]

Im surprised no one has pointed out an obvious conflict with Gay marriage and that is a person is not supposed to have sex before getting married. Another problem is religions consider certain behavior a sin. So now the devil is right but Jesus was wrong. Jesus just wasn't with the times. If it says it's a sin in the Bible and you are supposed to stay a virgin then why do you think it's right? Because people say so. The devil likes deception. Are you easily deceived embracing sin? What's next? Genetic engineered sex slaves?

[kara]

Looking Back at Huey Newton’s Thoughts on Gay Rights…In the Wake of Obama’s Endorsement

11 May


This was a speech given August 15 1970 by Huey Newton co-founder of the Black Panther Party..here he addresses the issue of Gay Rights… Its serious food for thought coming in the aftermath of President Obama endorsing Same-sex Message…

Huey Newton

During the past few years strong movements have developed among women and among homosexuals seeking their liberation. There has been some uncertainty about how to relate to these movements.

Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about homosexuality and the various liberation movements among homosexuals and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women as oppressed groups), we should try to unite with them in a revolutionary fashion. I say ” whatever your insecurities are” because as we very well know, sometimes our first instinct is to want to hit a homosexual in the mouth, and want a woman to be quiet. We want to hit a homosexual in the mouth because we are afraid that we might be homosexual; and we want to hit the women or shut her up because we are afraid that she might castrate us, or take the nuts that we might not have to start with.

We must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and feelings for all oppressed people. We must not use the racist attitude that the White racists use against our people because they are Black and poor. Many times the poorest White person is the most racist because he is afraid that he might lose something, or discover something that he does not have. So you’re some kind of a threat to him. This kind of psychology is in operation when we view oppressed people and we are angry with them because of their particular kind of behavior, or their particular kind of deviation from the established norm.

Remember, we have not established a revolutionary value system; we are only in the process of establishing it. I do not remember our ever constituting any value that said that a revolutionary must say offensive things towards homosexuals, or that a revolutionary should make sure that women do not speak out about their own particular kind of oppression. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite: we say that we recognize the women’s right to be free. We have not said much about the homosexual at all, but we must relate to the homosexual movement because it is a real thing. And I know through reading, and through my life experience and observations that homosexuals are not given freedom and liberty by anyone in the society. They might be the most oppresed people in the society.

And what made them homosexual? Perhaps it’s a phenomenon that I don’t understand entirely. Some people say that it is the decadence of capitalism. I don’t know if that is the case; I rather doubt it. But whatever the case is, we know that homosexuality is a fact that exists, and we must understand it in its purest form: that is, a person should have the freedom to use his body in whatever way he wants.

That is not endorsing things in homosexuality that we wouldn’t view as revolutionary. But there is nothing to say that a homosexual cannot also be a revolutionary. And maybe I’m now injecting some of my prejudice by saying that “even a homosexual can be a revolutionary.” Quite the contrary, maybe a homosexual could be the most revolutionary.

When we have revolutionary conferences, rallies, and demonstrations, there should be full participation of the gay liberation movement and the women’s liberation movement. Some groups might be more revolutionary than others. We should not use the actions of a few to say that they are all reactionary or counterrevolutionary, because they are not.

We should deal with the factions just as we deal with any other group or party that claims to be revolutionary. We should try to judge, somehow, whether they are operating in a sincere revolutionary fashion and from a really oppressed situation. (And we will grant that if they are women they are probably oppressed.) If they do things that are unrevolutionary or counterrevolutionary, then criticize that action. If we feel that the group in spirit means to be revolutionary in practice, but they make mistakes in interpretation of the revolutionary philosophy, or they do not understand the dialectics of the social forces in operation, we should criticize that and not criticize them because they are women trying to be free. And the same is true for homosexuals. We should never say a whole movement is dishonest when in fact they are trying to be honest. They are just making honest mistakes. Friends are allowed to make mistakes. The enemy is not allowed to make mistakes because his whole existence is a mistake, and we suffer from it. But the women’s liberation front and gay liberation front are our friends, they are our potential allies, and we need as many allies as possible.

We should be willing to discuss the insecurities that many people have about homosexuality. When I say “insecurities,” I mean the fear that they are some kind of threat to our manhood. I can understand this fear. Because of the long conditioning process which builds insecurity in the American male, homosexuality might produce certain hang-ups in us. I have hang-ups myself about male homosexuality. But on the other hand, I have no hang-up about female homosexuality. And that is a phenomenon in itself. I think it is probably because male homosexuality is a threat to me and female homosexuality is not.

We should be careful about using those terms that might turn our friends off. The terms “faggot” and “punk” should be deleted from our vocabulary, and especially we should not attach names normally designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the people, such as Nixon or Mitchell. Homosexuals are not enemies of the people.

We should try to form a working coalition with the gay liberation and women’s liberation groups. We must always handle social forces in the most appropriate manner.

http://hiphopandpolitics.wordpress.c...s-endorsement/

[Clay_Bonifield]

Im surprised no one has pointed out an obvious conflict with Gay marriage and that is a person is not supposed to have sex before getting married. Another problem is religions consider certain behavior a sin. So now the devil is right but Jesus was wrong. Jesus just wasn't with the times. If it says it's a sin in the Bible and you are supposed to stay a virgin then why do you think it's right? Because people say so. The devil likes deception. Are you easily deceived embracing sin? What's next? Genetic engineered sex slaves?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtqGTn7PCBw

[Clay_Bonifield]

Looking Back at Huey Newton’s Thoughts on Gay Rights…In the Wake of Obama’s Endorsement

11 May


This was a speech given August 15 1970 by Huey Newton co-founder of the Black Panther Party..here he addresses the issue of Gay Rights… Its serious food for thought coming in the aftermath of President Obama endorsing Same-sex Message…

interesting to see if obama's endorsement changes things tomorrow so that commentary given 40+ years ago is no longer as relevant as it is today...

[Detroitbootybass]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtqGTn7PCBw

Robosexuality is a big problem!

[House]

Fred

That was a dope read!

[Steven Stewart]

Fred

That was a dope read!

Ironic that it came from Rev. Wright's replacement. I'm curious to see if they try to Spin this one.

[neon]

Wow, I was surprised. Good points.

[Dal-Tex]

Tell us, O Wise One, where Jesus mentions homosexuals, and says we should stay virgins until married.

And, YES!!!! Clearly, Allowing two people of the same sex to marry puts us on the path to genetically engineered sex slaves. Gat Damn!!! You are a smaht one.

In a lot of religions two same sex people are not allowed to walk down the aisle. I think homosexuality was viewed as something abnormal. Like two bulls trying to mate you're not going to have an calves that way. Today we live in a modern society where certain things that were once viewed as taboo are now embraced. Unlike pedaphilia homosexulaity doesn't pose much of a threat to society and a LGBT can be a functional person

[dag]

In a lot of religions two same sex people are not allowed to walk down the aisle. I think homosexuality was viewed as something abnormal. Like two bulls trying to mate you're not going to have an calves that way. Today we live in a modern society where certain things that were once viewed as taboo are now embraced. Unlike pedaphilia homosexulaity doesn't pose much of a threat to society and a LGBT can be a functional person

perhps im biting bait, but just what kind of threat could homosexuality place on society?

[bomb cola]

In a lot of religions two same sex people are not allowed to walk down the aisle. I think homosexuality was viewed as something abnormal. Like two bulls trying to mate you're not going to have an calves that way. Today we live in a modern society where certain things that were once viewed as taboo are now embraced. Unlike pedaphilia homosexulaity doesn't pose much of a threat to society and a LGBT can be a functional person

You brought up Jesus, pal. Where did he mention homosexuals and virgins? If you don't know, just man up and say it.