The Family Leader Drops Controversial Section Concerning Slavery From ‘Marriage Vow’ Pledge

The so-called marriage pledge sponsored by a “family values” leader and already signed by Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, claimed that a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by both mother and father than a child born during the first African American president’s election.  

The statement is absurd on its face because frequently, many slave families were separated when sold to another plantation or when a plantation was bankrupt.  The most egregious implication of the “pledge” is to suggest that African Americans were better off as property, than we are today.

The entire statement is exactly what they meant it to be, racist to the core.

Those people are bat-crap insane!

Huffington Post

The Family Leader’s “Marriage Vow” pledge asks a lot of the presidential candidates who sign it. You better not like gay people, for instance! Porn is right out, too. But seriously, this is no-brainer stuff when you’re running for the GOP nomination in 2012.

Here’s one part, though, of the pledge’s preamble, that struck me as a little odd:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.

Yeah, you know there weren’t as many American jobs going overseas in 1860. And the price of gas was something just about everyone could live with, too. Nevertheless, while I understand the point the Family Leader wants to make about marriage, it seems to be many, many bridges too far to include this passage. As Adam Serwer succinctly put it: “A good rule of thumb for empathizing with black Americans is avoiding suggestions that we were better off as property.”

I was interested in seeing who possibly would beg to differ with Serwer’s premise. But while Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum (predictably) were quick to pledge their fealty to “The Marriage Vow,”The Family Leader has had a quickie divorce from the ‘slavery passage.’ Didn’t want to stay together for the children, The Family Leader? Oh well, it may have disappeared from the pledge, but the internet never forgets.



Related articles

3 thoughts on “The Family Leader Drops Controversial Section Concerning Slavery From ‘Marriage Vow’ Pledge

  1. The notion that a slave child was more likely to be raised in a two parent household than a Black child born in America today is ridiculous. First of all what would have constituted a “household” among the slaves? Certainly it would not have been two black parents and their children living in a “house” they possessed. Marriage wasn’t recognized among slaves. And slaves didn’t “possess” houses. They lived among many other slaves in slave quarters. Even if Black men were among those who shared the slave quarters, that doesn’t mean they were the parents of the slave children (who, BTW, were just as likely to be the offspring of the slave masters.)

    I hope Bachmann and Santorum receive a relentless hammering over this nonsense. Let’s see them try to explain their reasoning again and again. Let’s see them display their lack of knowledge of the institution of slavery. What better way to reveal not only their ignorance but also their brand of empty soul Christianity that feeds and defends their utter madness.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s