So Michele Bachmann signed a pro-marriage pledge that includes this language:
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.
What part of the term general election eludes her?
Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families? What the what? Holy understatement, Batman!
Which families would those be?
The families in Africa torn apart when human beings were stolen away to America to be sold into slavery?
The families in America whose father and mother were legally forbidden to become husband and wife, to enter into a marriage contract, because they were the property of another human being?
I really want to like her. The pledge makes some good points. But there is no way for me to pretend this decision was well-advised.
I am not looking forward to the re-run debate over this one. Whining about media bias, Wiki revising, "you are missing the point," etc.
Read the thing before you sign it. Demand they revise idiotic language that is certain to bite you in [rear] before you sign it.
Is there really anything more to say?
Well there is this, how obtuse must an evangelical Christian organization be to draw on American chattel slavery in a positive light? Especially in defense of marriage.
The Apostle Paul clearly stated that the forbidding of marriage is a doctrine of demons. American chattel slavery forbade marriage. What possesses a person to draw on slavery in this context?
Bachmann has put her defenders in a difficult position. This is not a gaffe. This is a pledge she signed. The whole purpose behind her signing it was to affirm its contents. In defending her you have to defend her affirmation of the contents. That is the point of her signing a pledge.
Good luck with that.