Columnist Rochelle Riley, who was unknown to me before today, may not be a conservative, but she’s certainly cognizant of what ordinary Americans value, unlike liberals:
The Democratic Party better get some religion.Not just because the Republican Party strategy to place gay marriage bans on the ballot in 11 states got President George W. Bush re-elected.
Not just because Protestant voters preferred Bush to Kerry 54 percent to 45 percent.
No, the party needs religion because as America embraces its spirit, its moral values and its love of God, the Democratic Party’s most loyal constituency — African Americans — are, too, making decisions based on moral values…
“It appears that nationally the 4 million Christians that didn’t come out for the president in 2000 did,” said Bishop Keith Butler, pastor of Michigan’s largest black church, the 21,000-member Word of Faith International Christian Center in Southfield.
Butler, a Bush supporter, was among dozens of southeast Michigan black pastors who either support the president or his policies or both — and then urged their congregations to separate the man from the issues.
While many black Christians find voting for Republicans repugnant, if President Bush is advocating bans on homosexual “marriage” and promoting a pro-life agenda and Democrats are not, perhaps separating the man from his policies will make the medicine easier to swallow.
Bishop Butler adds: “We just re-emphasize what the Scripture teaches about marriage, that it is between a man and a woman.”
What Scripture teaches? Hmmm. He just might be on to something! 
Update: Election update:
Bush — 60,366,889
Kerry — 56,938,627
Bush is still breaking records. B4B says: “President George W. Bush not only won re-election in resounding fashion, he has become the first person ever to have garnered over 60,000,000 votes for President of the United States of America.”
Update II (11/14): Liberal bloggers are talking about me again. I’m getting a few hits from their sites, and the visitors are staying for a long time. For whatever it’s worth, I’m glad you’re here and hope you visit again.
A New York Story via Thomas Galvin: “Bush dramatically increased his vote total in the New York metropolitan area. John Kerry did not even garner as many votes that Al Gore did despite the diminished presence of Ralph Nader. Bush increased his vote total in all 8 counties. Kerry suffered a net loss from 2000 in all 8 counties except for Manhattan…”
I think James Carville really is on crack.
Some Democrats just can’t get over themselves. Really. Stop parsing the “red and blue” and move on, please.
{ 41 comments }
The Democratic party shouldn’t pander to religious demographics. It made me cringe when Kerry would go out hunting in Ohio, or when he wore a brown worker’s jacket on the campaign trail, or when he spoke Spanish to hispanics. It’s phony, and voters can see right through this.
La Shawn,
Is your stance on gay marriage the same for civil unions? The reason I ask is because Riley cited a survey in which blacks opposed legal recognition of gay unions more than whites, and that is/was not my understanding. I’ve read studies in where it was found that blacks oppose homosexuality in general, more than whites, but tend to support some from of legal recognition of gay unions more than whites as well. I guess I need to just go read her survey, but anyway, I was just wondering how you feel about civil unions.
Homosexuals have the same civil rights I have, but what they actually seek are special rights. If they want more legal rights, they may do so with legal instruments. For instance, they can buy houses together and assign each other power of attorney, health care power of attorney, etc. I don’t think so-called civil unions are necessary and don’t see much of a distinction between them and homosexual “marriage.”
To answer your question, no, I don’t support civil unions, and I don’t know many blacks who do, either, liberal or conservative.
Civil unions are just a foot in the door of the inevitable. No marriage, No civil unions. I think the specific grievances should be addressed. Providing blanket solution will only create chaos.
It is hysterical to think some think that it was part of the Republican strategy to put a ban on homosexual marriage in 11 states. I doubt very highly that it would have been a huge issue to come up at this time, if it had not started with the mayor of San Francisco allowing the issuing of marriage licenses to gay people. I live in Oregon, and I can clearly remember the “news” at 10:00 PM that in Multnomah County the VERY NEXT DAY….that they would be issuing licenses also…..they had ONE legal opinion from a lawyer they asked if it was possible to do this. They held secret meetings for weeks leading up to this point with other council members except one: Lonnie Roberts. He is the only council member for Multnomah county that had NO idea what was happening…..he heard the news on the radio!
They had everything kept from him. The council members “in the know” also were meeting with another gay group trying to organize the whole thing. We passed measure 36, having marriage be between one man and one woman, for the preservation of traditional marriage. We did NOT like how this was handled in a “forcing it down our throats” kind of way. No public discussion….it was only after a couple of weeks of marriage licences being issued, that they held ” public ” hearings and then came upon the same conclusion that they should continue. I believe a judge finally put a stop to it all…..but there will be more court cases to follow. This was NO part of a organized effort to use this as a political pawn for the election…….it was forced upon the public, and action needed to be taken.
‘Homosexuals have the same civil rights I have, but what they actually seek are special rights. If they want more legal rights, they may do so with legal instruments. For instance, they can buy houses together and assign each other power of attorney, health care power of attorney, etc.’
The federal marriage amendment bans this.
Here is a quote from C.S. Lewis regarding marriage and divorce, but I think it
aptly applies to gay-marriage as well…
From “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis:
“Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one; the other is the quite different question — how far Christians, if they are voters or members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for everyone. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.”
I meant to bold-face or add emphasis to this part:
“There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.”
actus – The federal amendment reads:
“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
Where does it ban the right of people of any relation to put their names on deeds? Aren’t you in law school? Surely you know people can enter into legal agreements for almost anything.
“Legal incidents” of marriage is not a ban on the basic right to contract. Gee whiz.
I agree with the first comment – if “religion” is just another catchphrase they adopt, it will be quite repugnant, and most voters should see through it as a cheap ploy. I say “should”, but cheap ploys can sometimes be effective with too many voters.
Republican’s should be in black church’s for one reason, to worship Him. Let’s spend more time with each other just because it is the right thing to do. Everything else will follow.
Why do many black Christians find voting for Republicans repugnant?
I had also considered jab’s point about the “two types of marriage” as being a good idea. However, there could be some other snags that come up, such as:
different states not agreeing on the definition of civil marriage
different denominations not agreeing on the definition of church marriage
which rules would apply to existing marriages
would any religion get to define marriage as it sees fit? what about polygamy? cults & communes? it could get a lot worse…
Hatless – Which is why the very idea of two men getting “married” is ridiculous. And I see RED when white liberals compare interracial marriages (aka Loving v. Virginia) with two men wanting to get married. Ugh!
Troy – Because the ones who allow men like Kerry into the pulpit care more about social issues. To them, Bush doesn’t care about the “needs of black people”, whatever that means, and Kerry or any liberal, even if they are pagans, are perceived to care about the “needs of black people.” Skin color trumps EVERYTHING. It’s sick.
If that’s what it takes to get the “black vote”, GIVE IT UP!
>The Democratic Party better get some religion.
I wish she had said, “The Democratic Party better get some of that “old time religion” since just getting religion in our current “define your own religion” atmosphere doesn’t mean a whole lot.
There is a scene in O Brother, Where Art Thou? where a politician comes into a church (late and with his “secretary”) to get some religion and the vote. It reminds me of the tack most Democrats, including Kerry, have acted in the past. While Kerry wasn’t with a “secretary” he was carrying other baggage as you pointed out.
There is a war going on in America for the Common between the secularists and believers. I want to go on record and possibly be the first to say it, that a secular democracy is an oxymoron.
You go girl.
LaShawn,
As someone who is in a long-term inter-racial, gay relationship…
my partner and I very much see the analogy with the Loving v. Virginia case.
In fact, many of the exact same arguments against inter-racial marriage then
are used now to oppose same-sex marriage:
We’ll just have to disagree on that, jab. I wholehearedly disagree. That homosexuals have been allowed to co-opt the struggle of blacks for the basic rights of citizenship is…sad.
“Legal incidents” of marriage is not a ban on the basic right to contract. Gee whiz. ‘
Why not? it says that the law can’t be construed to give legal incidents of marriage. So if I make a contract that contains the legal incidents of marriage, then the law can’t be construed to enforce that contract. You say otherwise, but the text of the amendment doesn’t contain the exception for contract law. Its not lost on me that its the textualists that are proposing this amendment.
There are two ways around this. One is in the word ‘construed’. Which I take to mean ‘interpreted’. So if a law was clear and explicit in giving civil union rights, it would not be a construal/interpretation of this law to grant civil unions. It would be a simple reading of it. This argument is strengthened by the fact that people are worried about the undemocratic imposition of civil unions by judges, and not so worried about legislatures granting that right. I don’t think this will fly with the courts. Especially after the Bush appointees are in.
The other way around this is in what is a legal incident of marriage. I take it to mean anything that comes automatically with marriage — ie, anything that is incidental to marriage. So if spousal visitation rights come with marriage, then contract law, or any other branch of law can’t recognize a spousal visitation right, post the FMA.
A friend has argued that it is the entire set of things that come with marriage. So that a law that granted one or a few or anything but that entire set of rights and obligations would still be allowed. By his reasoning, post the FMA, a federal law allowing gay couples to file joint taxes would be allowed, because this law doesn’t grant all the legal incidents of marriage, just one.
Again, I think the courts, after Bush is done with them, won’t take the latter reading.
La Shawn – perhaps one of your liberal visitors to this blog can answer the question.
Uh, excuse me liberal person? What are the social issues or “needs of black people” Bush and the Republicans choose not to care about?
MUCH better comment, actus, although I disagree with it. In response to your first paragraph, particularly …if I make a contract that contains the legal incidents of marriage…
Don’t make a contract that contains “legal incidents of marriage.” Problem solved! As you know, there are LEGAL ways to get what you want. Two men don’t have to seek it under “marriage” laws.
This push for homosexual “marriage” is for one reason only, to use government force to make Americans accept homosexuality as normal. Any homosexuals can go to any Queer Eye for the Big Guy church and be declared “married.” They can even stand on any hill and shout it to the world.
This does not affect me. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. (Thomas Jefferson)
You may yet get the GI OK, but it will be all for naught. Deep down inside, in the dark of night, He will still knock.
LaShawn,
And do you know who has the second most votes ever in a presidential election? Kerry!
All this means is:
(1) population has grown over 4 years
(2) high turn-out on BOTH sides because of the difficult issues facing the country.
Bush won a clear, but very close election. Bush’s two electoral victories are in the top 3 in modern history for most narrowest margin. The last time that a president won with under 300 was Carter in 1976 (with 297). And no one thought he had an overwhelming mandate.
Where did I write that Bush had an “overwhelming mandate?”
‘Don’t make a contract that contains “legal incidents of marriage.” Problem solved! As you know, there are LEGAL ways to get what you want. Two men don’t have to seek it under “marriage” laws.’
But the legal incident of marriage in this case would be, for example, health care power of attorney. In my contract, I wouldn’t call it a legal incident of marriage. I would just call it a health care power of attorney. Or it could be any of the many administrative conveniences that people enjoy when they are married.
Then, when I got sick, my partner would chose to excercise his power of attorney. Suppose the hospital balked, and for some reason didn’t accept our contract. Or suppose my mother balked, having never accepted my relationship. And then we ended up in court trying to enforce the contract. The amendment would bar enforcement of the contract, because it would be a construal of the laws in order to grant the legal incidents of marriage.
If this amendment was interested in defining marriage, it would be one sentence long. The first sentence. Its real effect, and I think purpose, is to frustrate the lives of people attempting to settle down and grow old together. You’ll notice that it even destroys heterosexual unmarried partnerships. Lots of businesses extend unmarried partner rights to their heterosexual employees. Under the FMA, these would not hold up in litigation.
A real good amendment would restrict the courts, but still allow legislatures the freedom the grant rights. This should take care of fears people have of activist judges and undemocratic policymaking.
Overall a good article, and I especially like Pastor Vann’s remarks, but while the writer does a good job illustrating the whole “separate the man from the issues” idea, she is a little too eager to promote the “it was gay marriage” meme. Had the exit-polls put the Iraq/Terrorism question together (as it is in most minds, studies show) in the same way they asked about ‘values’ (which could be about anything), they would have shown that the values question was much lower on the scale. But the press has their orders, and the meme must be pushed.
All the same, the central point – that the Democrats need to get some religion – is a good one. The problem is, I will barf if we now have to watch Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton pepper all of their phrases with scriptural references. There needs to be a conversion of heart, and what St. Benedict would call a “conversion of manner” before I’ll be able to believe one word of what most of these folks have to say about faith. And if they can’t be converted…then I pray they’ll at least come to respect people of faith. Is that really too much to ask?
LaShawn,
I have a theory that I have seen no where else; The left is so out of touch, they thought forcing this issue in an election year would force Bush out against this issue, thinking only a minority would be against it. Think about it…If Kerry was on the way,why bring this up before the election? Certain lefties in the blue states assumed they could push this as a civil rights issue and in their arrogance assumed this would work against Bush…In the end, 80-90 percent came out against it, and the subject backfired and some traditional Dems crossed the line and voted for Bush. Bush did not make this an issue, the far left did, and that is what is wrong with the Dems now. Radical Environmentalism, Feminism, and Gay rights issues are killing them. These issues control the purse strings of the Dems and the red states vote in kind against the far left. I can’t help but wonder if the left would have held off on this issue until after the election, would Kerry have won?
Luv you
Paul
actus & jab: You two are great at clouding the real issue by spouting complex legal arguments, and hijacking past struggles for equality.
In the no-spin world it comes down to one thing only: moral equivalence. That’s what you want, plain and simple. Male/male female/female will never be the moral equivalent of marriage, as it is defined, and has been defined since who knows when.
I would remind you that 11 states voted overwhelmingly that they don’t buy the “gay marriage” push, and all its complex arguments. Heterosexuals don’t need your permission to be straight, so why the need for our permission for you to feel okay with your choices? Just do whatever it is you do, and leave America’s family unit alone.
Besides, La Shawn put it best. It’s not about rights. You already have the right to marry- you just don’t like the right as it exists. You want it changed- just for you. Be honest about that one little fact, and you might actually get dialogue with people. Keep spinning your arguments, and you’re going to keep getting what you’ve already gotten.
You can’t fool all of the people, all the time.
‘Besides, La Shawn put it best. It’s not about rights. You already have the right to marry- you just don’t like the right as it exists. You want it changed- just for you.’
I don’t want these things for me. I want the opportunity for my friends who are settling down, building homes, and looking to live life with their loved ones the best they can. I’d like them to not be frustrated in that by people who they are not harming. By people who would judge them without knowing them.
Our country has come a long way, and is one of the world leaders in understanding that though are not all cut of the same cloth, we are all trying to live our lives of happyness and love best we can.
La Shawn, if you have a chance, you might want to check out Al Mohler’s session from the “Sex and the Supremacy of Christ” conference. I saw that the MP3 files are online on Piper’s site. We bought the MP3, so we already have it. If zipping would work, I’d do that for you and email it to you, but zipping didn’t really shrink the size. I don’t know enough about MP3s to know why.
actus: I’m glad you responded, but I wish you had responded with some substance. Talking about happiness and peace is great, but it’s just emotional fluff- it doesn’t speak to the issues.
I too want to be happy. But I’m not willing to give up the sacred institutions of marriage and family so a few others can be treated differently, and neither is the majority of America willing to that.
You really don’t offer anything compelling that would make me seriously consider a change for the few, that would devastate the many.
‘Talking about happiness and peace is great, but it’s just emotional fluff- it doesn’t speak to the issues.’
People are very emotiaonal and fluffly. Specially when it comes to how they settle down and build their lives. Deciding before the fact that that is not the issue begs the question. The change I would offer? edit the FMA so that it is one sentence long — the first sentence. That defines marriage, while allowing people — all of us — to live our lives in our own ways.
OK Dominic is entering the fray….
As for the article and its merits; Democrats have been blasting away at the notion that values were THE reason that they lost. Should they continue to hold to that belief, 2008 will also be a Republican victory. The MESSAGE was the reason they lost the election, as much as the messenger. I see the Dems as missing the point; and the elist in their party rolling their eyes and shouting “those right-winged fundamentalists came out in droves”. It was more than that.
As for homosexuality, the 11 amendments on the various states ballots were not a republican strategy. They were a reaction to the Massachuesettes Supreme Court decision and the actions of the San Francisco Mayor. I have to agree with the notion that civil unions if enacted, are just the first step to approval of gay marriages. The object of any group wanting something is to always get a small victory first; gay marriage may not past today,but, if you can sneak civil unions under the radar than over the course of time, “what the heck, go ahead, give them[gays]what they want”.
As for why blacks view voting for a Republican as repugnant: you’d probably have to read up on every conservative black blog on the Internet to get an IDEA of why blak view this as such. I believe that LaShawn offered one good reason. Mine is as follow, since the time of our Emancipation, blacks have often been lead as a single group,e.g. we all descended from slaves so we share a common bond in that respect. Well, as a result, we’ve gained a collective mentality of what is right or wrong or what’s best for our interests by a select few “leaders”. There has always been only a small number of individuals willing to speak for us. Somewhat like a Moses, leading us into the ‘PROMISE LAND’. Therefore, with that being said, over the years, self-serving “leaders” have attached our well being to the hopes and fate of the Liberal/Social ideal and the Democratic Party. Enuff said, what you have now is the ‘herd mentality’; monolithic thinking at its best. So when you choose a candidate, Republican is not even a consideration. And if a black thinks differently, its the,”what’s wrong with you Brotha/Sista”?
LaShawn, hope I didn’t say too much and cut into your bandwidth?
Certainly not! Commenters can say as much as they need to say. I gladly pay for the privilege.
Ms. Riley is the one I ripped into while back (2002)about one of commentaries: she was pining for the days of one William J. Clinton and wishing that there was some way that he could have been re-elected for a third term.
Regarding same-sex marriage: every single time I read of the case for legalized same-sex marriage, I wonder about something. Should it become the law of the land, what will happen to a Christian/Jewish/Muslim clerygyman who refuses–on religious grounds–to perform a such a ceremony?….
Okay, I see jab has addressed a solution to that problem. However, without a proposed two types of “marriage” being in place, the church (and synagogue and mosque) is without protection in the interim should an SSM law be voted in.
‘Should it become the law of the land, what will happen to a Christian/Jewish/Muslim clerygyman who refuses–on religious grounds–to perform a such a ceremony?….’
the same thing that happens to any clergyman that refuses to perform a heterosexual wedding. nothing.
I wonder if a British newspaper is going to print a corrected headline like: “How can 60,366,889 people be so stupid?”
Actus said, “the same thing that happens to any clergyman that refuses to perform a heterosexual wedding. nothing”
Are you sure about that? Evangelicals in Canada & Sweden who have been brought up on “homophobic” charges for practicing their beliefs would beg to differ with your legal opinion.
‘Evangelicals in Canada & Sweden who have been brought up on “homophobic” charges for practicing their beliefs would beg to differ with your legal opinion.’
My legal opinion that is not based on canadian law? I understand canada to have hate speech laws — which we don’t. Maybe they have used hateful speech there, but I haven’t heard of it happening in the refusal to marry area.
I also understand that the government doesn’t get into the marriage business of any particular churches in other areas of discrimination — such as racism, or discriminating between denominations. So I don’t see why it would jump into this one. Why would a homosexual want a priest who didn’t want them married to officiate is beyond me.
Its a red herring. Just think about it.
Actus said, “Why would a homosexual want a priest who didn’t want them married to officiate is beyond me.”
Beats me why they would. But not a red herring. If it hasn’t happened yet, it will as sure as the sun rises in the East. History shows that they would act up for the same reason that they bushwhack churches and religious organizations by filing discrimination lawsuits in areas of employment for one. While most would be content to be “tolerant”, there remains a small, but significant minority that enjoy nothing less than ultimately poking a stick in God’s eye as it were.
Why give such an opening to these misguided perverts? As usual, the few ruin it for the rest by such in-your-face actions.
On the other hand, it could be a moot issue if Bush suceeds in restrainng out-of control courts that encourage such frivilous lawsuits.
I’d settle for codifying that one can’t sue faith-based organizations for the standards they enforce. Don’t like a particular “bias”? Go find a friendlier atomosphere.
Good morning La Shawn..
I just got back from Madison,Wisconsin and missed reading your comments. Here’s a few facts I’d like to add….plus an observation.Ohio..the supposedly depressed blue collar swing state increased it’s black vote by almost 100%…from 9% to 16%. I find this very encouraging. This is a comment from one of the black republican leaders of our state.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Bush gains more Ohio black votes
Early, earnest grass-roots efforts helped to re-elect the president
By Byron McCauley
Editorial page editor
Ken Blackwell, Ohio’s secretary of state, answers questions from reporters at the Ohio Statehouse Building early on Nov. 3. Long before Ohio’s pivotal role in re-electing President Bush, Blackwell, a former Cincinnati city councilman, has been among the nation’s best-known black Republicans.
The Associated Press/PAUL VERNON
Zoom
By no means did President Bush carry the African-American vote in Ohio on Nov. 2, but 16 percent of blacks, up from 9 percent in 2000, voted to keep him in the Oval Office. But the nearly 100 percent increase in black support for Bush in Ohio may have given him the election. This despite the state’s overwhelming job losses, discontent over the war in Iraq and one glaring fact – Bush is a Republican.
What’s wrong with this picture?
For years, Democrats have taken African-American votes for granted in America, largely because the Republican Party in recent years had lost its moral advantage as the party of Lincoln. But, as the presidential election showed, things are slowly changing for the better because when one party believes it has a lock on a particular group, that’s not healthy for democracy.
“You had a lot of people coming out of the closet,” said Deborah Burstion-Donbraye, the African-American outreach director of the Ohio Republican Party. “(Being a Republican is) the one thing black folk will not talk about. They are so certain that the person next to them or the person who looks like them is a Democrat, and they don’t want to carry the baggage of being a black Republican.”
Burstion-Donbraye, 50, of Cleveland, isn’t one of them.
She has been active in Republican politics for years and has long been a Bush ally, having served as his press secretary when he ran for governor of Texas. Her work, and the work of the Ohio Republican Party, deserves at least some of the credit for increasing black support for Bush in the state.
My observation…There is a growing group of minorities that are fed up with the direction of the democratic party. These people are the new frontline warriors who’ve replaced the outdated…old strategy civil rights leaders that continue to manipulate the black vote. Take care..and have a great day. Ray
Comments on this entry are closed.