Who knew that all we needed to do to reduce the rate of children born out of wedlock in the African American community and essentially save the institution of marriage was resurrect another establishment at the underbelly of our country’s history - slavery.
Last week, former GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander
Plaats and his group, The Family Leader, called upon Republican presidential
candidates Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) to sign a “Marriage
Vow,” swearing their support of traditional marriage (whatever that is), and
thus potentially earning the organization’s backing in the 2012 elections.
after signing the pledge, the “liberal media elite” got hold of the document, and
it wasn’t long before Santorum and Bachmann learned a valuable lesson in why
it’s important to read things in their entirety before signing them; something you'd like to think an elected official would already know.
Citing The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans: A Comprehensive Literature Review, the vow (fully titled “The Marriage Vow: A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family”) argues the importance of preserving the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, reaching far back into our nation’s history for “proof” that there was a time when things were done right; specifically in the black community.
“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.”
We’re not ones to argue statements such as these without doing our due diligence, but here’s a thought: There’s a small chance that the fact that they were enslaved, and forced to live together, risking death if they tried to leave, had an impact on a couple’s decision to stay together at the time, and may have a slight bearing on the data here. Just a thought.
Bachmann’s camp has since denounced the preamble of the document, claiming that the presidential hopeful only endorsed the “candidate vow,” which didn’t mention slavery or anything else that could be considered offensive, and reportedly provided a forwarded message from The Family Leader, confirming that the language about slavery had been removed from the document for fear that it could be “misconstrued,” and apologizing for “any negative feelings this has caused.”
A representative for Santorum told CNN that the former Senator from Pennsylvania was “pleased” to sign the pledge, but agreed with the organization’s decision to remove the language pertaining to slavery.
While that particular passage has been stricken from the original
document, what remains still suggests that homosexuality is a choice and calls
for a ban on pornography; so we’re pretty sure that by the time all of the left
wing social activists get done with this one, “The Marriage Vow” will be whittled
down to something that could fit in a fortune cookie. And at this rate, 2012
definitely won’t be among the lucky numbers for the GOP.