home
RSS
May 13th, 2012
01:07 PM ET

Across country, black pastors weigh in on Obama's same-sex marriage support

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

Washington (CNN) - Addressing his large, mostly black congregation on Sunday morning, the Rev. Wallace Charles Smith did not mince words about where he stood on President Barack Obama's newly announced support for same-sex marriage: The church is against it, he said, prompting shouts of "Amen!" from the pews.

And yet Smith hardly issued a full condemnation of the president.

"We may disagree with our president on this one issue," Smith said from the pulpit of the Shiloh Baptist Church in Washington. "But we will keep him lifted up in prayer. ... Pray for President Barack Obama."

And Smith said there were much bigger challenges facing the black community - "larger challenges that we have to struggle with" - bringing his full congregation to its feet, with many more amens.

Days after Obama announced his personal support for same-sex marriage, pastors across the country offered their Sunday-morning opinions on the development, with the words of black pastors - a key base of support for Obama in 2008, that is also largely opposed to gay marriage - carrying special weight in a presidential election year.But black pastors were hardly monolithic in addressing Obama's remarks.

In Baltimore, Emmett Burns, a politically well-connected black minister who said he supported Obama in 2008, held an event at Rising Sun Baptist Church to publicly withdraw support from the president over Obama's same-sex marriage support.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

"I love the president, but I cannot support what he has done," Burns said at the church.

In an interview with CNN, Burns predicted that Obama's support for legalized same-sex marriage would lead to his defeat in November.

The Rev. Calvin Butts, an influential black pastor in New York City, did not endorse Obama's views but denounced those who are ready to "watch others be discriminated against, marginalized, and literally hated in the name of God."

"Our God is love," he said.

And like Smith in Washington, plenty of black ministers talked about distinguishing between opposition to same-sex marriage and views about Obama.

"I don't see how you cannot talk about it," the Rev. Tim McDonald, based in Atlanta, said earlier this week. "I have to. You can say I'm opposed to it (same-sex marriage), but that doesn't mean I'm against the president."

Though African-Americans provided Obama with record support in 2008, they are also significantly more likely to oppose same-sex marriage than are whites. That may be because black Americans are more likely to frequently attend church than white Americans.

A Pew Research Center poll conducted in April found that 49% of African-Americans oppose legalized same-sex marriage, compared with 39% who support it. Among whites, by contrast, Pew found that 47% supported gay marriage, while 43% opposed it.

African-American pastors have been prominent in the movement to ban same-sex marriage. In North Carolina, black leaders helped lead the successful campaign for a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage and domestic partnerships.

In California, 70% of African-Americans supported Prop 8, the 2008 state gay marriage ban, even though 94% of black voters in California backed Obama.

McDonald, who founded a group called the African-American Ministers Leadership Council, says he opposes same-sex marriage, but that he is more concerned about issues such as health care, education and jobs.

But he says more black pastors are talking about same-sex marriage than ever before. "Three years ago, there was not even a conversation about this issue," McDoland says. "There wasn't even an entertainment of a conversation about this."

In Atlanta, at the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church - where Martin Luther King Jr. got his start - the Rev. Ralph Warnock addressed the president's remarks near the end of his sermon.

"The president is entitled to his opinion," Warnock said. "He is the president of the United States, not the pastor of the United States."

Warnock said that there is a place for gays in the church, and that "we don't have to solve this today."

Black churchgoers on Sunday appeared split on same-sex marriage, though many of those opposed to it said they still supported Obama.

"It's a human rights issue, not a gay issue. All people that pay taxes should get ... the same privileges and rights," said Terence Johnson, a congregant at Salem Bible Church in Atlanta.

At Shiloh Baptist in Washington, Shauna King said she does not support same-sex marriage, but that she respects the president's decision on it.

"I think he was very honest in what he was saying and personally he decided to do that," said the 38-year-old mother of two. "As individuals, we all have to make that decision for ourselves."

"I believe it speaks to what America is," she said. "That we all have different views and are respected for our views individually."

Black opposition to same-sex marriage has dropped dramatically in recent years. In 2008, Pew found that 63% of African-Americans opposed gay marriage, 14 percentage points higher than the proportion who expressed opposition this year.

On Friday, a handful of black leaders, including the Rev. Al Sharpton and former NAACP leader Julian Bond, released a letter supporting Obama's position on same-sex marriage but expressing respect for those who disagree.

"The president made clear that his support is for civil marriage for same-sex couples, and he is fully committed to protecting the ability of religious institutions to make their own decisions about their own sacraments," the letter said.

"There will be those who seek to use this issue to divide our community," it continued. "As a people, we cannot afford such division."

But the letter itself was an implicit acknowledgement of discord within the African-American church community on gay marriage.

Black pastors who preach in favor of same-sex marriage know they may pay a price if they take Obama's position, says Bishop Carlton Pearson.

The Chicago-based black minister says he lost his church building and about 6,000 members when he began preaching that gays and lesbians were accepted by God.

"That's the risk that people take," he told CNN. "A lot of preachers actually don't have a theological issue. It's a business decision. They can't afford to lose their parishioners and their parsonages and salaries."

Pearson navigates the tension between the Bible's calls for holiness and justice this way: "I take the Bible seriously, just not literally," he says. "It's more important what Jesus said about God than what the church says about Jesus."

In Obama's interview with ABC this week, in which he announced his personal support for same-sex marriage, the president talked about squaring his decision with his personal religious faith.

"We are both practicing Christians, and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others," Obama said, referring to his wife, Michelle.

"But, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it's also the Golden Rule," he said. "Treat others the way you would want to be treated."

– CNN’s John Blake, Chris Boyette, Meridith Edwards, Dan Merica and Stephanie Siek contributed to this report.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: 2012 Election • Barack Obama • Gay marriage • Politics

soundoff (3,700 Responses)
  1. 21k

    hey, this should work well in november: beat-up your candidate over a silly non-issue (by that i mean whatever the bible says, since it is all made up bs). then when he loses to a rich-whites-only candidate, you'll wonder what happened. and it will serve you right.

    May 13, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • Babykitty

      Uh huh, and he's not all-black candidate? C'mon, just admit that Obama will get 90%+ of the black vote no matter what he says. Now THAT is racist.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • 21k

      and romney will bet 100% of the kkk vote.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • 22k

      You're statement shows a lack of due diligence, and an ignorant opinion. You say it's a bunch of made up bs, but you fail to support your claim with any credible evidence. What parts are bs? How can you prove it? Why use a blanket statement that has no solid support. Are you a text manuscript scholar? Are you an archeologist? Would you like to point out which parts are true and which are false? Clearly, you simply shrug off something as being "made up bs" because you choose not to believe it based on your lack of understanding. Try supporting your statements with credible evidence and reasoning.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • Jared

      @22K
      "You're statement shows a lack of due diligence, and an ignorant opinion. You say it's a bunch of made up bs, but you fail to support your claim with any credible evidence. What parts are bs? How can you prove it? Why use a blanket statement that has no solid support."

      First its Your statement, (You're = You are) while we are calling people's opinions ignorant lets try to do so with proper grammar. Now as to the made up BS, you realize the good book was written by men that believed the world was flat and the center of the universe I assume. I'm sure you understand that it was passed down and revised and rewritten from one language to another, often changed to suit the desires of those in power....

      There are so many contradictions in the bible, not only to what science has proven...(Adam was not created first and given dominion over the creatures of the earth as Genesis states) Dinosaurs inhabited earth for millions of years, millions of years before the first bipeds roamed. And they were not the first living things here either. But the good book even contradicts itself from the old testament to the new. Suffice to say it is easier to just call the entire thing BS...due diligence is hardly required to call label the thing as fiction.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • rick

      evidence? if we talk about science i can provide you with some evidence but religion is the opposite...you just believe. i personally believe in Cinderella. She's beautiful. one day i'll marry her.

      May 13, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
  2. Copenhagun

    The bible used to be used against them and now, they use it against gay people. Stay classy human race.

    May 13, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • Yepyep

      fuk you RACIST

      May 13, 2012 at 10:46 pm |
    • ccarlssson

      YEPYEP – How exactly is that racist? It's a perfectly valid point. Religion was used as an excuse to discriminate against blacks. Now they are using it (and some pretty questionable biblical references at that) to join in the discriminiation against gays. The hypocrisy is astounding.

      May 13, 2012 at 11:19 pm |
  3. Chad

    So, are churches supposed to abandon the word of God, going against the will of the God of Abraham just so that everyone can feel better about themselves?

    May 13, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • Copenhagun

      YES

      May 13, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • 21k

      if it's the god that did not stop hitler, i'd say yes. and no, i don't think hitler's free will was more important than the free will of the millions he murdered. thank satan for democratic presidents like fdr, right?

      May 13, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • momoya

      No, Chad.. Religious people should live by the code they think is correct.. Religious people should NOT demand that other people live by their religious code.. If society is nice enough to let you live by your religion, then you have to return the favor and allow others to live by the code they feel is correct..

      It's arrogant and bigoted to select the code you want to follow and then turn around and get pizzy that other people want to select and follow the code that they choose.. It's simple logic.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • Chad

      @21k "if it's the god that did not stop hitler, i'd say yes. and no, i don't think hitler's free will was more important than the free will of the millions he murdered. thank satan for democratic presidents like fdr, right?"

      =>The exercise of free will in disobedience to the clearly expressed will of God is exactly the problem (as Hitler demonstrated).
      One doesn't fix that any situation by continuing to do precisely that.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • Really-O?

      "the clearly expressed will of God" ... HAAAAAAAAAA!

      May 13, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      abraham was willing to stab his own son to death because he heard voices in his head.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • Chad

      @momoya "Religious people should live by the code they think is correct.. Religious people should NOT demand that other people live by their religious code.. If society is nice enough to let you live by your religion, then you have to return the favor and allow others to live by the code they feel is correct.."
      @Chad "so, religious people arent allowed to express an opinion? They arent allowed to organize and lobby our representative government to enact legislation?

      Is that what you are saying?

      Christians should not be allowed to lobby for/against legislation if some other group doesnt agree with that viewpoint?

      Who made you the determiner of which groups are allowed to execute constitutionally guaranteed rights?

      May 13, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad -

      Civil rights are not subject to the democratic process. Why is that so god-dam.ned hard for you to understand?

      May 13, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • Chad

      ah :-)
      If you want to do something that is considered wrong by some group, just declare it a civil right :-)

      May 13, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad -

      That was a stupid, thoughtless response.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • josh1

      You cannot cherry pick things from the bible. Either you do not use literal texts from the bible to condemn gays or you:
      - Belief in talking snakes
      - remove civil rights from people that eat scrimp
      - condemn people that are divorced
      - Never shop on sunday, or eat out, or work...
      - refuse to accept evolution.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad-

      You're side lost in 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia and your side will, eventually, lose the gay-rights issue. Twenty years from now Christians will have once again conveniently forgotten that they supported discrimination.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Has anyone else noticed that the strength of Chad's arguments (not that they're ever actually strong) are inversely proportional to the number of emoticons he uses? Interesting.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Jared

      "abraham was willing to stab his own son to death because he heard voices in his head."

      "Schizophrenia is a complex mental disorder that makes it difficult to: Tell the difference between real and unreal experiences; Think logically; Have normal emotional responses, Behave normally in social situations."

      There were so few good shrinks back in the day though.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • Chad

      so, is everything that someone wants to do, ok?

      May 13, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad-

      You're being disingenuous Chad...you already know the answer to that question.

      May 13, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
    • Chad

      @Really-O? "You're being disingenuous Chad...you already know the answer to that question."

      that's one thing I notice about the majority of atheists. They just won't answer some questions. ;-)

      why is that?

      the reality that acknowledging that like one behavior and dont another, scare you that much?

      you were saying some thing about being disingenuous?

      May 13, 2012 at 6:02 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad -
      Many "atheists" won't answer believers for the same reason Professor Dawkins doesn't debate creationists...it's a waste of time and it lends implicit validity to their claims. In this specific case, I didn't answer your question because it is a dishonest question. Ask me a sincere question and I'll probably answer.

      May 13, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad-
      ...if you do ask a question, please make it intelligible...some of the sentences in your last post were jabberwoky.

      May 13, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad-
      You're missing an opportunity...I took a long afternoon nap in the May-shade of my maple; did twenty minutes of HIIT; enjoyed a long Vipassana practice; and I'm now starting on my second round of Dr. Walker's Magic Elixir. I'm feeling expansive and magnanimous. No better time for you to engage me with honest conversation.

      May 13, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
    • Chad

      Good grief, you got every single point wrong...

      @Really-O? "Many "atheists" won't answer believers for the same reason Professor Dawkins doesn't debate creationists..
      @Chad "Dawkins WILL debate belivers (Lennox, Collins, .etc, etc..), he just WONT debate William Craig because he knows he'll get beat.

      He's scared, dishonest and disingenuous ;-)
      ==========
      @Really-O? ".it's a waste of time and it lends implicit validity to their claims. In this specific case.
      @Chad "you're on this board hours every day, but you dont bother because it's a waste of time... er.. what?

      ==========
      @Really-O? " I didn't answer your question because it is a dishonest question"
      @Chad "you didnt answer it, becasue you know precisely the position it would put you in, namely having to acknowledge that society shouldnt allow any behavior.

      @Really-O? "Ask me a sincere question and I'll probably answer."
      @Chad "no you wont.. you're scared of the position you would be in. ;-)

      Here's the question: Should society allow people to do whatever they want (as long as it's not "harming" someone else)?

      May 13, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad-

      Chad, Chad, Chad. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt (stupid me) and assume you are not being dishonest, but just don't understand. So...point by point:

      "Dawkins WILL debate believers" – I stated that Professor Dawkins won't debate creationists, not believers. A thirty second Youtube search proves he will debate believers.
      "you're on this board hours every day, but you don’t bother because it's a waste of time..." – I said "many atheists won't answer believers. I've have never stated I'm an atheist and, even if I had, that in no way invalidates my statement. Of course I will often answer believers...that's part of the game I enjoy; however, you used the generalization of "Atheists", implying all Atheists.
      "you didn’t [sic] answer it, because [sic] you know precisely the position it would put you in" – No, Chad, I didn't answer your question because it was disingenuous...you already know the answer any sane person would give.
      "no you wont" – yes, I will.
      "Should society allow people to do whatever they want (as long as it's not "harming" someone else)?" – Yes, society should allow people to do whatever they want as long as they do not cause others to suffer AND no unprovoked force is involved (please not the AND...this is not to be confused with OR).
      Now...why couldn't you have simply asked those questions honestly from the start?

      Now, how about a civil reply that doesn’t involve an order or two of magnitude more text in your reply than in the message to which you were replying? Can you manage that?

      May 13, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad-
      Sorry for the invalid [sic]s...my editor betrayed me.

      May 13, 2012 at 7:57 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad "Should society allow people to do whatever they want (as long as it's not "harming" someone else)?"
      @Really-O "Yes, society should allow people to do whatever they want as long as they do not cause others to suffer AND no unprovoked force is involved (please not the AND...this is not to be confused with OR)"
      @Chad "so, then you are in favor of:
      - legalizing all forms of drugs (as long as they are not used when operating a vehicle, same as drinking and driving).
      - legalized prostitution in all states
      - legalized gambling in all states
      - legalizing the sale of alcohol and cigarettes to anyone of any age.
      - legalizing polygamy
      - legalizing the marriage of a man and women of any age, as long as the women consents.
      - repealing statutory rape laws
      - eliminating pedophilia laws, sex with a boy or girl of any age is ok as long as they consent to the act

      May 13, 2012 at 8:05 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad-
      One retraction, because I'm honest (see how nice that is?)...you did say "the majority of atheists", not "Atheists". That said, the rest of my reply to that part of your post stands.

      May 13, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
    • fish

      Let's follow everything word in the Bible literally Chad. Women can be property of men, and blacks are the cursed race of Ham destined for slavery.

      May 13, 2012 at 8:09 pm |
    • Chad

      Creationism is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God.

      Creationist that Dawkins has debated:
      Jonathan Dimbleby
      John Carson Lennox
      Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith
      Kenneth Miller
      Francis Collins
      Alister McGrath
      Richard Harries.

      May 13, 2012 at 8:14 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Chad-
      I'm flummoxed...I have a sincere response for each of your points, but, for some reason, CNN won't accept my post. I'll keep trying.

      May 13, 2012 at 8:36 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad – regarding “so, then you are in favor of”

      I’ll address each point:

      - legalizing all forms of drugs (as long as they are not used when operating a vehicle, same as drinking and driving). - Yes (no unprovoked force involved)

      May 13, 2012 at 8:41 pm |
    • Really-O?

      - legalized prosti.tution in all states - Yes (as long as there is no unprovoked force is involved)
      - legalized gambling in all states - Yes

      May 13, 2012 at 8:42 pm |
    • Really-O?

      - legalizing the sale of alc.ohol and cigarettes to anyone of any age. No (minors have guardians to make those decision for them)
      - legalizing polygamy - Yes (as long as age-of-consent is observed)

      May 13, 2012 at 8:42 pm |
    • Really-O?

      - legalizing the marriage of a man and women of any age, as long as the women consents. - No, not at any age. See “legalizing polygamy”
      - repealing statutory ra pe laws - No. See “legalizing polygamy”

      May 13, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
    • Really-O?

      - eliminating pedoph.ilia laws, se.x with a boy or girl of any age is ok as long as they consent to the act - No. See “legalizing polygamy”

      Chad! Are you really that obtuse? You can’t see the difference between what consenting adults do and victimizing children?

      May 13, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad – sorry, found the bug. So, for ease of reading...

      @Chad – regarding “so, then you are in favor of”

      I’ll address each point:

      - legalizing all forms of drugs (as long as they are not used when operating a vehicle, same as drinking and driving). - Yes (no unprovoked force involved)
      - legalized prosti.tution in all states - Yes (as long as there is no unprovoked force is involved)
      - legalized gambling in all states - Yes
      - legalizing the sale of alcohol and cigarettes to anyone of any age. No (minors have guardians to make those decision for them)
      - legalizing polygamy - Yes (as long as age-of-consent is observed)
      - legalizing the marriage of a man and women of any age, as long as the women consents. - No, not at any age. See “legalizing polygamy”
      - repealing statutory ra pe laws - No. See “legalizing polygamy”
      - eliminating pedoph.ilia laws, se.x with a boy or girl of any age is ok as long as they consent to the act - No. See “legalizing polygamy”

      Chad! Are you really that obtuse? You can’t see the difference between what consenting adults do and victimizing children?

      May 13, 2012 at 8:47 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad-
      And just so there is no misunderstanding...when I say "see legalizing polygamy" I am referring to age of consent.

      May 13, 2012 at 8:54 pm |
    • Chad

      Really-O?
      - legalizing the sale of alc.ohol and cigarettes to anyone of any age. No (minors have guardians to make those decision for them)
      - legalizing the marriage of a man and women of any age, as long as the women consents. – No, not at any age. See “legalizing polygamy”
      - repealing statutory ra pe laws – No. See “legalizing polygamy”
      - eliminating pedoph.ilia laws, se.x with a boy or girl of any age is ok as long as they consent to the act – No. See “legalizing polygamy”

      =>who are you to tell children what's best for them? Why shouldnt they be allowed to make up their own minds?
      (answer the question now, no ducking and dodging)

      May 13, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad- regarding "Creationist that Dawkins has debated"

      That's obvious equivocation Chad, and that's dishonest (although I will accept a plea of ignorance, if you make one). Here it is, directly from Professor Dawkins -
      Why I Won't Debate Creationists
      By RICHARD DAWKINS May 14, 2006
      http://richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-debate-creationists

      May 13, 2012 at 9:10 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad – "answer the question now, no ducking and dodging"
      Once again, that is a dishonest question, delivered in a manner one would expect to hear on a school yard. And, once again, I'm the fool as I've tried to engage you as an intellectual peer, but you've proven your nothing but a sad sack-o'-sheit. Really Chad, the forum is right about you...you're just pathetic.

      May 13, 2012 at 9:17 pm |
    • Chad

      Really-O? "That's obvious equivocation Chad, and that's dishonest (although I will accept a plea of ignorance, if you make one). Here it is, directly from Professor Dawkins -
      Why I Won't Debate Creationists
      By RICHARD DAWKINS May 14, 2006
      http://richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-debate-creationists

      =>how do you figure?
      There is only one creationist that Dawkins wont debate, William Lane Craig.
      All of those other debates were with people that believe the God of Abraham created this universe and life on it.
      right?

      Craig isnt a "young earth creationist", he's just to smart for Dawkins ;-)

      check this out: "Richard Dawkins versus Young Earth Creationist Politician"
      Richard Dawkins vs Steve Fielding on 'Q&A' on March 8th, 2010

      May 13, 2012 at 9:20 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad – "answer the question now, no ducking and dodging"
      @Really-O? "Once again, that is a dishonest question, delivered in a manner one would expect to hear on a school yard. And, once again, I'm the fool as I've tried to engage you as an intellectual peer, but you've proven your nothing but a sad sack-o'-sheit. Really Chad, the forum is right about you...you're just pathetic.

      =>didnt answer the question because you know it will expose the inconsistency in your position of "anything that someone wants to do is just fine with Really-O?(as long as it doesn't hurt someone else) ;-)

      who are you to deny the right of any person to decide for themselves?

      May 13, 2012 at 9:24 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad- regarding: "who are you to tell children what's best for them? Why shouldnt they be allowed to make up their own minds?"
      There is, actually, as simple, obvious answer to your question. Guardians (in this case guardians of legal minors) are those whose responsibility it is to provide care and protection for the members of society who cannot care for themselves. Kind of like the care your Jesus is supposed to provide you...only this kind of care is real.
      You really are a dishonest, stupid, foolish, jackas.s Chad.

      May 13, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad-
      Craig is a philosopher, and a second rate one at that. He is, without question, eloquent, but his arguments are hackneyed and tired. Dawkins is one of the preeminent living natural scientists...what in the would could be gained from an atheist natural scientist debating a theological philosopher? Seriously? Should my gastroenterologist debate diagnosis and treatment of cirrhosis with an auto-mechanic? You really are stupid. Education Chad...seek it.

      May 13, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
    • Chad

      Perhaps you could tell us what actually is the difference between the Archbishop of Sydney George Pell (whom Dawkins debated this April, and William Lane Craig?
      What is it that actually makes Craig a member of that select group of people termed "creationists" that Dawkins won't debate? And how exactly is Pell NOT a creationist??
      ;-)

      May 13, 2012 at 9:33 pm |
    • Chad

      Really-O? "what in the would could be gained from an atheist natural scientist debating a theological philosopher? "

      =>well, obviously Dawkins believes there is something to be gained as he has debated other theological philosophers.

      and, it isnt "theological philosopher" that is the "I won't debate" criteria anyway,. right? remember what you wrote before? It's creationists..
      ;-)

      May 13, 2012 at 9:36 pm |
    • Chad

      @Really-O? "Guardians (in this case guardians of legal minors) are those whose responsibility it is to provide care and protection for the members of society who cannot care for themselves. "

      =>so,, you are saying, that you recognize societies right AND responsibility to do what it feels is right for the citizenry. EVEN if that means that some of those same people didn't want their right to engage in that behavior restricted..

      I see ;-)

      somewhat at odds with your "everything goes as long as no one gets hurt" earlier statement

      May 13, 2012 at 9:39 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad-
      Some of your points regarding Dawkins debating Craig are valid – I overreached. I think, however, you overreach when you assert that the "believers" Dawkins has debated are all "Creationists". True, some or many may have believed in the Genesis Myth, but that does not mean their debates with Dawkins were regarding creation...right? Now, with regard to the Craig and Dawkins bit... you seem to be correct, at least with regard to the fact that Dawkins has previously debated several theologians and, as Craig is primarily a philosopher of theology (I'm not aware that Craig has ever made a statement being a "creationist"...can you provide a source for that claim?) the excuse I offered for Dawkins wasn't valid.
      Now...all that said, Professor Dawkins has actually debated Dr. Craig (you can google it). Dr. Craig, while intelligent and very eloquent, is a second-rate philosopher with fallacy-riddled, tired, hackneyed, oft-repeated arguments and your Craig nutt-hugging (I don't think Jesus would like that Chad, kinda gay) just shows how limited your cognitive abilities really are.

      I'll say it again...the forum is right...you are profoundly dishonest and not too bright.

      May 13, 2012 at 9:55 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad – "you are saying, that you recognize societies right..."
      There is a difference between minors and adults...how many times do you have to hear that Chad. You really are stupid, aren't you?

      May 13, 2012 at 9:58 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad-
      In the hope that you'll understand, I'll say it several more times...
      CHAD IS ONE STUPID S.O.B.
      CHAD IS ONE STUPID S.O.B.
      CHAD IS ONE STUPID S.O.B.

      got it?

      May 13, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad-
      ...and I still suspect you may have Asperger syndrome. Have you checked with your mom?

      May 13, 2012 at 10:02 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad-
      Regarding your list of "creationists" Dawkins has debated...I checked them out...the majority are NOT creationists in the inbread-ignorant-backwoods sense you mean (goddidit-darwinwaswrong). Just another example of the fact that you're a lying sack-o'-sheit. How does that sit with your god?

      May 13, 2012 at 10:49 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...inbred...dam.ned spellchecker...inbred.

      May 13, 2012 at 10:51 pm |
    • Chad

      The definition of creationism I supplied was:

      Creationism is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God.

      Today, the American Scientific Affiliation and the UK-based Christians in Science recognize that there are different opinions among creationists on the method of creation, while acknowledging unity on the Christian belief that God "created the universe."[4][5][6] Since the 1920s, literalist creationism in America has contested scientific theories, such as that of evolution,[7][8][9] which derive from natural observations of the universe and life. Literalist creationists[10] believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth.[11] Fundamentalist creationists of the Christian faith usually base their belief on a literal reading of the Genesis creation narrative.[10][12] Other religions have different deity-led creation myths,[note 1][13][14][15] while different members of individual faiths vary in their acceptance of scientific findings. In contrast to the literalist creationists, evolutionary creationists maintain that, although evolution accounts for biodiversity, evolution itself is cosmologically attributable to a Creator deity. – Wiki

      May 13, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad-
      Right, most, but not all you listed believe in "creation", but not the literal goddidit creation that you and your backwoods-southern-inbred-bible-belt ignorant evangelical brethren believe in. Hey, are all evangelicals as dishonest as you? or...is it just stupidity?

      May 13, 2012 at 11:05 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...another wiki copy/paste. You're not just dishonest and stupid...you also can't learn. Who'da thought.

      May 13, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad-
      Hey Chad, has sweet-tea, fried catfish, and church-bake-sale cupcakes tipped you past 300 pounds or does the fear of god and fretting about your dishonesty keep you slim?

      May 13, 2012 at 11:11 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Hey..."I'll say it again...the forum is right...Chad's profoundly dishonest and not too bright." Rhymes...kind of catchy...I think I'll make it one of my blog calling cards.

      May 13, 2012 at 11:21 pm |
    • DragonSlayer Lights Your Fire

      Do you even understand the separation of religion from state?

      That means your religious beliefs are you own to practice but they are not the laws of the state

      May 14, 2012 at 12:36 am |
  4. David

    It is the ultimate irony to listen to black/hispanic religious leaders use "the Bible" to justify discrimination, the same book that was used to justify slavery and ban intraracial marriage. Anyone who doesn't think the discrimination is the same, has no understanding of what it means being gay. Wake up! Don't allow the conservatives to divide our nation when there are so many suffering.

    May 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
  5. AmericanSam

    If Obama loses because of this issue, he will go down in history as a President who stood up for what's right no matter the consequences. Very happy he did not wait until after the election for this announcement. Very happy to support Barack Obama in the upcoming election.

    May 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • Babykitty

      He's actually flip-flopped on the issue several times. It looks like he's only doing it because Romney came out against it. Purely political. If Romney had been for it, he would have been against it.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • Jared

      Hysterical BabyKitty, a Romney supporter whining about flipflopping....thats rich...I mean Romney rich!

      May 13, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • Babykitty

      Jared, shows what you know, doesn't it? I'm not a Romney supporter either ;) Also not sure how you can get hysterical from pure facts, but whatever.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      @babykitty

      it's obvious he supported g.a.y marriage the whole time. he just knew that a few years ago, it was a campaign killer. the winds have changed. people aren't as h.omophobic as they were even 10 years ago. more people support g.a.y marriage these days than are against. he would have come out for g.a.y marriage when his 2nd term started anyway.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • Jared

      @Babykitty, you imply Obama took a stance based on what the king of Flip floppery your obvious choice Mittens has chosen to say. Wont Obama have to flip flop once again if the wind shifts and Romney flops once again? The fact is it was a political move on Obama's part. He wont lose one single vote for this decision, nobody that is opposed to gay marriage would ever vote for Obama anyway, nor would most moderates that don't really care one way or the other allow this issue to push them to vote for the plutocrat.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Babykitty

      Jared, I have never planned to support Mittens. You are correct, obviously, that nothing he said would lose his black voting block. At this late in the game, it would be suicide for either party to flip flop on any issue.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • josh1

      Honestly, changing your opinion is not a bad thing. Flip flopping to me means more that you change your opinion without giving an acceptable and believable reason. I think the President changed his opinion and made it clear how he came to this. This is very different from somebody that al of the sudden preaches the opposite of what he said before and even denies he had a different opinion at one point...

      May 13, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Jared

      @Babykitten, "If Romney had been for it, he would have been against it."

      If Mitt had been for it, he would make Rick Perry look intelligent, perhaps even Palin. In what universe could you even imagine the GOP candidate entertaining such a notion. If he had been for it, Obama could go on vacation till next January and win in a landslide....you are HYSTERICAL tho!

      May 13, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Jared

      @Josh 1, very well said. I have changed my views as I have gotten older and learned. I think it's a good thing to be able to do so. I see Mitt as a used car salesman he will say whatever he must and not only flip flop but deny he ever held the previous view that was juxtaposed to his new one. I love how he denied recollection of holding down and cutting the gay kids hair in college, while those that helped him certainly remember and are ashamed of it....ole Mitt just doesn't remember, but is so sorry "IF it happened" Like is that something you could ever "forget" doing? This guy just oozes character huh?

      May 13, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • reality check

      Obama used the SAME words about gay marriage as Dick Cheney. In face you can watch the video of Cheney. Just google "dick cheney" and "gay marriage."

      May 13, 2012 at 9:28 pm |
  6. AaronT3

    Any church white black yellow red green that preaches intolerance and hate is not about God but their own prejudice. These pastors seem to forget the "God so Loved the World", not just parts of it, but the WHOLE WORLD!!!!!!

    May 13, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • IslandAtheist

      He loved the world so much he gave birth to himself. LOL... makes perfect sense.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      and you seem to forget that God drowned everyone on earth at one point, babies included. yeah, that's definitely a "loving" god.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • iab

      I agree with you. Church and state should be separated. I have no clue as to what bible some of these self righteous ppl are reading. What makes them think God does not love all ppl nt just them. When they judge others, make an attempt to take away ones rights they are violating what the God I serve stands for.

      May 13, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • Saved by Grace

      Jesus said to hate the sin but love the sinner. No place in the Bible does it say to hate anyone. The Bible does talk about God being holy and how He will punish sin but it never says that He hates anyone. If you are going to try to bash the Bible and God at least get your facts straight.

      May 13, 2012 at 8:15 pm |
    • reality check

      Island, you forgot that he then committed suicide to "save" mankind from their sins. I'm not sure how that works.

      May 13, 2012 at 9:22 pm |
  7. josh

    this will cost obama the election by catering to the gays he wil loosel a large portion of the black and latino vote who are very conservative on this issue.and this will only make mitt romney stronger,with a weak economy unemployment as high as 8% and a republican house there seems the last thing obama needs is to loose more votes that he will gain from this.he will loose the entire south including florida and many swing states.although he will win san francisco for sure.way to go barry

    May 13, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • Fozzyspeak

      How can I take your opinion seriously when you cannot spell the word lose correctly?

      May 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • IslandAtheist

      The Mormon Faith teaches dark skin is a curse from god, blacks will be voting for Obama in record numbers.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • dorothy

      Right....because the good christian right would much rather have a man whose church supported polygamy, believe that Jesus popped over to the US after the resurrection, and will return again in Missouri. It is so much more consistent with their belief.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • Jared

      The latest poll has latino support for Obama around 72%, and the Blacks....really? How many blacks do you think will vote for Mitt Romney?

      May 13, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • steve

      it not no ones place to judge someone else on there believes, live your life and be as righteous as possible..

      May 13, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • iab

      So be it at least he stands for something and has the courage of his convictions. He will not lose the election there are too many well educated who understand the whole situation. Just imagine what will happen if Mitts wins in November. God help us all.

      May 13, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • reality check

      The LDS church doesn't teach that Dark skin is a "curse from god." You may want to keep up with the times. Were racist words said by members? Yes, but look at the year that the Southern baptists apologized for their involvement in slavery. They make the Mormons look downright progressive.

      It amuses me that so many actually think Obama is so unique and genuinely supportive of gay marriage. He is merely parrotting Dick Cheney's words for years ago and is far less genuine. The convenience of running for re-election and the sudden change of heart leaves a rotten taste in my mouth. But then, Obama could have used his first Executive Order to require the allowance of openly gay soldiers in the military. Instead, his first act was to seal his records. It's no wonder so many become delusion spouting birth certificate and muslim nonsense. But, he set himself up to look the fool he has become.

      May 13, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
  8. CommonSense

    Just one more reason to ridicule the foolishness, stupidity and ignorance of organized religion.

    May 13, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • lindy556

      stupidity and ignorance of organized religion
      ===========
      Yeah cause that atheist Stalin was a real smart guy!!!

      May 13, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • doughnuts

      Yes, Stalin was brilliant. He was smart enough to use the Communism and the cult of his own charisma to replace religion for most of his followers: Party meetings on Sundays, "patriotic" songs, readings from the prescribed texts.

      Just like church.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      lindy: You idiot! Atheists are not out protesting against equal rights or basing equal rights off of a book written 2000 years ago. Stalin did nothing in the name of atheism.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • DragonSlayer Lights Your Fire

      All organized religions are Evil. They just all dress different for the party.

      May 14, 2012 at 12:39 am |
  9. obama is out

    time for obama to go. their is no reason to wait for the fall election...

    May 13, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • Aeromechanic

      He's not going anywhere. All of the GOP's lies have been exposed. Obama got our country back on track.

      bin Laden is dead, GM is alive.

      'Nuff said!

      May 13, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      you're gonna cry your eyes out when he gets another term. lol.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      You moron!!! That would involve impeaching him and you can't impeach him for standing up for equal rights and upholding the consti.tution. He won't be gone, he has women; young people; gay's and the liberal rebublicans on his side.

      btw: their=there

      May 13, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • Babykitty

      Recent poll: Obama: 42 to Romney:50

      May 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      babykitty, yeah Fox news polls are really accurate. lol.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Babykitty

      It was Rasmussen poll yesterday, but whatevs. I don't even watch or read Fox news.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
  10. CHUCK

    I would hope that the black minister's throughout the nation will follow the lead of Rev Sharpton and Rev. MaDonald. They disagree with President Obama, so they will pray for him and move forward on more important issues.

    May 13, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • FWesley

      Um.... reverend Sharpton is on the right side of history and supports Barrack O'Bama on gay marriage. Did you read the caption under the photo?

      Interracial marriage became fully legal in the U.S. in 1967. It was a prison sentence for some, such as in the state of Virginia, before this. Anti-interracial marriage laws also existed in Nazi Germany in the Nuremburg laws. Still think there is no connection between suppression of blacks and gay persons?

      It's time to evolve into better human beings... let gay persons be happy and leave them alone! Leave your bigotry at home.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      well said, weasley.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • edpeters101

      Actually Sharpton agrees with Obama! I wonder how these preachers are going to replace all of the support they have received from the LBGT when (if) they decide to abandon the civil rights of "color"? Say something like "Everybody is against us? Just because we don't think they should be 'equal'"? Bigots, one and all...

      May 13, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
  11. RightyTighty

    Here is where the men who follow God are separated from the men who follow men. Those who are walking with God know what is right.

    May 13, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      those walking with god are in a cult. grow up, forget your imaginary friend in the sky and join the really real world.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • dorothy

      It should be obvious......Fighting for monogamous committed relationships in marriage; fighting for their families; fighting to serve their country in the military.....all noble and Godly battles. Verses fighting to control women's reproductive rights, fighting to keep their pastors out of jails for illicit se x ual conduct, fighting to protect their money........Gays are obviously walking in the Godly path and the religious right is going down the drain with the "ways of men."

      May 13, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • THE TRUTH!

      I respect this posting!.......some men will twist things "to suite themselves" some men will do the right thing"even if its not popular" be careful who you listen to.... there are some teachers, leaders, out their if you look carefully you'll see the message ... "do as i say not as i do........be careful what sheperds you follow.......some will lead you off a cliff!!!!

      May 13, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • RightyTighty

      Bootyfunk, denying God only short changes you. This country was founded on a covenant with God and if you did your research you will find the truth. We are in the state we are in because this country has turned away from God and the only way to save it is to return to his way. You will get your chance to choose whos side you are on soon.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • DragonSlayer Lights Your Fire

      and right would be that you will go to heaven when you pass on? well do it already leave this sinful earth to the man following no believers if heaven is so great

      May 14, 2012 at 12:41 am |
  12. saywho

    Book pounders again.

    May 13, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • MinnesotaSlims

      Darn right they're book pounders. Pounding on a Book and a Truth that's stood for thousands of years and will stand for thousands more. What are YOU standing on?

      May 13, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      truth? you'll find very little of it in the bible. the bible is disgusting. it supports slavery. it says to kill g.a.y.s, non-virgin brides and disobedient children. it says not to eat lobster. all kinds of craziness.

      i am a humanist. i believe in humanity. i believe in my fiance, my friends and my family. i believe in compassion and reason. you can believe in a lot of things without having to believe in an imaginary friend in the sky.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • Rico

      @bootyFunk I can clearly tell you've never read much of the bible..it has never stated or condoned any type of slavery you are just a liar.

      May 13, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
  13. Ari

    how alarming that the black community – once a minority (still some may argue) plaugued with the oppression and bigotry of discrimination and isolation – would now turn around and apply (of all things) the church as a reason or excuse to apply the same thinking to another minority. this shows how ridiculous religion is, when it's doctorine can pit one percecuted minority against another. what a load of nonsense and utter rubish

    May 13, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • dorothy

      It's a well known phenomena. When then persecuted kid gets accepted on the playground by the "cool kids" (aka: Bullies), they too become the persecutor.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      i agree. it's sad that after being freed, they're adopted the religion of their oppressors.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • Babykitty

      No one is being persecuted here. Being denied marriage rights is not persecution. Maybe you should read up on what actual persecution entails: BBC Africa is online and free. Take a look.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      most blacks are poor. poor people are generally more religious.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      being denied marriage rights is a denial of civil rights.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Babykitty

      Bootyfunk, there is a world of difference between snivel rights and "persecution". I am sure bigamists and pedophiles feel the same way since they can't marry the people they want.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • drewsco

      You're making a misleading comparison. Slaves were subjected daily oppression, physical abuse, no civil rights, and a host of other inhumane conditions. The only thing that the gays are being oppressed with is no legal recognition of marraige.

      Therefore, to claim that gays are being persecuted similiar to slaves is quite insulting to those who are still affected from the horrible legacy of slavery.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • dorothy

      There is no doubt that there are degrees of persecution. Indeed in days gone by, gays were burned at the stake, thrown in jails, and sent to concentration camps. Admittedly those things are worse than being denied the civil right to marry. Nevertheless, it is still persecution and should not be tolerated in a country as great as ours. Thank God for a President who understands that basic concept.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • Babykitty

      Exactly. Why, back in 8th grade I failed a math test and I KNOW it was because of the legacy of slavery. Now THAT is oppression.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      when you have legislation going through that keeps you from getting married to the person you love, i'm guessing it feels like you're being persecuted. when you are specifically targeted to have civil rights denied to you, i'm guessing it feels like you're being persecuted. have you thought about how it would feel to be told you can't marry someone you love?

      pedophiles and bigamists? are you insane? what does pedophilia or bigotry have to do with g.a.y marriage?

      May 13, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      You're making a misleading comparison. Slaves were subjected daily oppression, physical abuse, no civil rights, and a host of other inhumane conditions. The only thing that the gays are being oppressed with is no legal recognition of marraige."

      it's not a comparison to slavery. it's a comparison to the civil rights struggles. until 1968, blacks and whites couldn't marry. see how that's similar?

      May 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • Jared

      Blacks rarely see their own bigotry, and if they do they claim it's justified. They are undoubtedly the most racist race out there and yet the least tolerant of anything remotely racist done against their own kind. Everyone is bigoted against somebody to some degree I think...just human nature.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      "Blacks rarely see their own bigotry, and if they do they claim it's justified. They are undoubtedly the most racist race out there and yet"

      ummm.... okay... check out the burning cross and say that again: http://cnnphotos.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/07/life-in-appalachia-regression-to-the-mean/?hpt=hp_c3

      all people have prejudice, it's true. but to say blacks are more prejudice really just shows your own ignorance.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • boom

      Saying gay is a minority is ignorant of the truth also. how many of these pastors are gay themselves? we know many are from scandals.... the rest are hiding it well..... but hey a few hail maries a hefty donation and u r cleaned of it.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • Jared

      @Bootyfunk, "but to say blacks are more prejudice really just shows your own ignorance." I do love how people throw the "Ignorance" name around when they disagree with you. Maybe I misspoke, perhaps they are not the MOST racist, I mean to say they are as racist as any other people, the difference is they seem TO ME to get a pass for it.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • Cranch

      Its not just the black community that was plaugued with the oppression and bigotry of discrimination and isolation – would now turn around and apply (of all things) the church as a reason or excuse to apply the same thinking to another minority. Recall how "white" (not native America) America was found with those from England seek freedom from oppression but soon began to enslave and oppress others... So short our memories.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • DragonSlayer Lights Your Fire

      @Bootyfunk

      it's because it's FREE to attend. A poor mans home.

      May 14, 2012 at 12:43 am |
  14. Missing the point!

    Today is MOTHERS Day! This issue should not have even been anywhere near a sermen today!

    May 13, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • HURLCO

      no fooling

      May 13, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • boom

      it 1000% MUST be part of a sermon today.... anything that risks pulling someone from a church REQUIRES the church to preach against it regardless if it is true or not. this is how religion works.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • n900 mixalot

      Ah but see mothers are the symbol of unconditional love, save for the normal exceptions. And if we talk about unconditional love then that would mean that we could not rail on gays. So nah, let's demonize people today because that is what black church is about. Screaming and shouting and falling all over the place, acting like animals.

      Or... are we just talking about the churches coveting the media spotlight?

      May 13, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
    • DragonSlayer Lights Your Fire

      Mother's Day is not a religious affiliated holiday or celebration so why would they care

      May 14, 2012 at 12:44 am |
  15. dorothy

    Right....gays are in the courts fighting for monogamous committed relationships in marriage, family, and service to their country in the military. The religious right are in the courts fighting for control over women's reproductive rights, defending their pastors for illicit se x ual indiscretion and misappropriation of funds. Yeah.....the Black Pastors have really come done on the side of truth and justice on this one. The Churches are undermining their own moral authority with their foolishness. Gays have certainly taken the high road in this fight.....so did our President.

    May 13, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      g.a.y.s get railed for being promiscuous, but when they say they want to be in a committed marriage, they get told no. lol.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
  16. Babykitty

    “That’s the risk that people take,” he told CNN. “A lot of preachers actually don’t have a theological issue. It’s a business decision. They can’t afford to lose their parishioners and their parsonages and salaries.”

    Exactly why I don't go to church anymore. Imagine the horror! Pastors are now forced to choose between being PC and what's best for business.

    May 13, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • boom

      tell that to the NUNS... aka the WOMEN of the Roman Catholic Church whome are about to be scolded by Bishops their Male Masters.... Ah yes christianity that OTHER religion that oppresses women...

      May 13, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • Babykitty

      boom, I have no idea what you are talking about. I am fascinated, though. Why will nuns be scolded? Will monks be scolded as well? In talking about black pastors, they are pretty much all Protestant and make up the Bible as they go along.

      May 13, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
  17. BOb the Prairie Dog

    Headline should have read: Recently Oppressed People Use Bible Quotes to Oppress Different Group of People.

    Call it what it really is: Xenophobia.

    May 13, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • Jared

      Very well said!

      May 13, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • DragonSlayer Lights Your Fire

      co-sign that statement

      May 14, 2012 at 12:46 am |
  18. It's traditional

    for the minority that has just gained its civil rights to be the most intolerant of the next group to come along. Blacks are no different.

    May 13, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • just saying

      this is a moral issue, not a civil rights issue.

      May 14, 2012 at 12:23 am |
  19. BobPlanet

    There's not a snowball's chance of Obama losing a single African American vote over this issue, and everyone knows it.

    May 13, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • Montanajau

      "There's not a snowball's chance of Obama losing a single African-American vote over this issue." Right. Any fool knows that, But what about the rest of us?

      May 13, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      i hope you're right.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • Jared

      It was a no brainer, not one person already opposed to gay marriage was going to vote for Obama anyway.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • boom

      YEAH! the rest of us will vote for the Mormon whose own religion declares christians to be a vile religion

      May 13, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • just saying

      bob, i am a black male and you are SO wrong on this it is laughable. blacks will not be supporting obama in the same numbers trust me.

      May 14, 2012 at 12:24 am |
  20. RayJacksonMS

    The bible clearly says blacks should still be slaves. Where is the line of volunteers for slavery in these churches?

    May 13, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • HZD

      Don't publicly display your ignorance. It's embarrassing.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • HURLCO

      That is such a lame analogy and a complete non sequitur

      May 13, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      the bible clearly supports slavery, but it doesn't say anything about the color of a slave's skin.

      May 13, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • boom

      the bible.... aka the book written by man to control man... of course it has things that are evil... u can only interpret the word of 'god' by what u know around u cuz apparently he speaks like nostradamus so man hears peace and love and changes it to bigotry and war

      May 13, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • JomoDaMusicMan

      If the bible clearly states that blacks should still be slaves, then why did GOD lead Moses out of Egypt. All scholars know the Ancient Egyptians, Pharaohs & Citizens were just as black as all their Neighboring Countries. So, if Moses was white, how in the hell could he have been mistaken for Pharaohs Daughter's SON. So when u say the bible clearly states, that means you don't read the bible because the BIBLE DOES NOT CLEARLY STATE ANYTHING! U MORONIC RACIST IDIOT!

      May 13, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke and Eric Marrapodi with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team.