Black Republicans and the presidential election
 

I put this in the Soap Box since a flame war will probably start at some point, but I feel it's a legitimate topic.

For those black Republicans who generally consider themselves loyal to the Republican party, do you vote for a Mormon Republican who's belief system teaches that black skin is the mark of Cain, or do you vote for a man who's thought of as a socialist by many Republicans?

If you view it differently than that, how do you approach it? And since there aren't a lot of black Republicans in the world, paraphrasing and quoting is allowed as long as you feel you're keeping your integrity with the accuracy of the quote.

I'm specifically interested in what blacks and black Republicans think, so unless you find it offensive or privacy invading please give your race and preferred political affiliation. If you're not an American, your opinion is welcome, just say your country.

And if Mr. Romney has already answered this question directly, a link would be awesome. Going to go search now, if a link shows up I'll post it here. Honestly, though, I expect a lot of double-talk if he's dealt with the question at all.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Revelation_on_Priesthood[/url]

Haven't looked at above link just yet, will do so after this post, but apparently Mitt Romney has officially stated that he DOESN'T think it's wrong for a white person to marry and procreate with a black person.

While I'm still very much interested in what black Republicans and blacks in general think of him, I suppose it's a situation similar to a Catholic candidate dealing with the fact that their church tends to disapprove of birth control.

For people who like to quote individual verses out of context(which I guess I'm guilty of, in a sense, because of this thread), here's my take on a random verse that I've had trouble with in the past. Has nothing to do with the topic, just proves that the explanation can be extremely non-obvious.

The verse in question basically states that it is "easier for a camel to travel through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven." Obviously, this is a scary verse to someone like George Bush or any millionaire, so I prayed about it. What I realized is that if someone truly believes, as the Bible states, that everything on the Earth was created by God and therefore belongs to God, than we are basically caretakers and don't actually own anything. So it's not actually a matter of giving away all your possessions to get into heaven(unless that's God's will), it's more a matter of having a respectful attitude and realizing that God owns our possessions and we should treat them as something He could claim at any time. If you don't own anything, you're technically a pauper(not a rich man) so a loyal Christian could control, say, Microsoft, and as long as they followed God's will they'd be within God's will.(Sorry, couldn't find a way of saying that without being redundant)

Not trying to preach here, just saying that sometimes a seemingly contradictory verse in a religious text has meaning independent of the verses nearby. Another point is that even if black people are cursed(I'm not personally a Mormon, just trying to be fair) there's nothing saying that God expects us to participate in a curse. As a matter of fact, maybe God, if Mormonism is true, wants us to be extra merciful to blacks since they are continuously under this curse. Again, not a Mormon, just trying to see if it might be possible to fit it in with what I believe about God.

Off-topic:

It's always interesting to read about event's occurring in the 70s. I always get this picture in my head of me running around in a diaper or riding a Big Wheel while this stuff was going on.

On the plus side, I did the math a while back and I'm definitely not a bastard. Unless the pregnancy went on for over a year, which is highly unlikely.

While the LDS church no longer officially denigrates black people, another minority fares less well with religion in general (though there are also many exceptions to this, religions who do embrace this minority as valid members of society): LGBT people. So maybe your discussion could be broadened to ask the question: are lesbian/gay/bi/trans republicans going to vote for Romney?

Obama, of course, has recently come out [URL="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/05/09/breaking-news-president-obama-confirms-support-for-equal-marriage/"]in favour of opening marriage[/URL] to same sex couples. The LDS church does not agree with this view in general, and while there are [URL="http://mormonsformarriage.com/"]some exceptions[/URL], Romney has responded to Obama's support for equal marriage by making it clear that he takes the view of most other mormons that marriage is for one man and one woman. So same sex couples would remain discriminated under a President Romney. Would LGBT voters who want the right to marry still vote for him if they supported his other policies? The question interests me.

By the way, I'm not black, not American (I'm Dutch), but I am gay and one half of a same sex couple. If I was American and entitled to vote in the presidential election, I would not vote Republican anyway even if Romney supported ending the discrimination of same sex couples. Therefore I find it rather difficult to put myself in the shoes of a gay republican supporter and decide whether Obama's recent support for opening marriage to me and others like me coupled with Romney's continued refusal would cause me not to vote Republican this time around. I'm very interested in any indication of how many voters will in fact be swayed (either from Republican to Democrat or vice versa) on the issue of opening marriage.

The issue of opening marriage and ending discrimination of LGBT couples may of course also affect the voting intentions of straight people who know gay couples personally, or simply those who cannot understand why anyone would deny a same sex couple the same legal recognition as a man-woman couple.

Being a Mormon I'm willing to answer anyone's questions on this subject from that perspective. I would like to clarify a few things said:
[QUOTE]jasong: ...do you vote for a Mormon Republican who's belief system teaches that black skin is the mark of Cain...[/QUOTE]Has Romney said this is his belief? I personally doubt he believes it.

It is true that Brigham Young taught that Africans were descended from Cain. It was a common teaching at the time (back in the 1800's) in many churches.

On the other hand, I was born in 1977. A year later our church received the revelation to end the priesthood ban. In the 30+ years of being a member of the church, I don't recall ever hearing a sermon on the subject. I served my mission in Alabama, and can honestly say that our church was more integrated than many others. (Not the best, but definitely not bad.)

While some members still believe what Brigham Young taught (and I doubt Romney is one of them), it is not taught by the church. Further, those few who do believe it probably understand "the mark of Cain" a little differently than you might expect.

[QUOTE]jasong: ...apparently Mitt Romney has officially stated that he DOESN'T think it's wrong for a white person to marry and procreate with a black person.[/QUOTE]And neither does any other member of my church, including our leadership. Statements in Brigham Young's time, when slavery was still legal in the United States, have to be understood in the culture of the day. Many biracial babies, for example, were the result of a white man taking advantage of a black slave woman.

[QUOTE]Brian-E: While the LDS church no longer officially denigrates black people...[/QUOTE]It is true of my church, as of any institution, anywhere, that it contained (and probably still contains) members who were racists. Some taught denigrating things, and acted in denigrating ways. But I would say that it never officially denigrated black people. Our doctrine has always been clear that all are literally children of God. Everyone I know rejoiced when the priesthood ban was lifted. It has always been official doctrine that the ban was not a measure of worthiness, and in fact we didn't know the reasons for it. Countless people prayed for a long time for it to be lifted.

---------------

As for Republicans voting for a Mormon, I honestly don't think they will have a problem with it; at least not for "racist" reasons. Obama's previous pastor, Reverend Wright, was much more racist than any Mormon you will ever meet.

As for Brian-E's question about gay marriage: it appears that, so far, Obama's choice has hurt him politically (but not financially). Many LGBT Republicans will vote for Romney because they hope to change the Republican party, and don't view gay marriage as the most important issue. Of course, some will, and have, switched sides.

[QUOTE]The issue of opening marriage and ending discrimination of LGBT couples may of course also affect the voting intentions of straight people who know gay couples personally, or simply those who cannot understand why anyone would deny a same sex couple the same legal recognition as a man-woman couple. [/QUOTE]Currently, the movement has been against Obama.

I think the reason may be related to how gay marriage is viewed here in America. Those for it view it as a "civil rights" issue. Those against it view it as a "changing the family structure" issue.

Those against gay marriage for this reason will not be led to want to change the definition of marriage after seeing gay neighbors any more than seeing single parents succeeding in raising children would lead them to want to promote that form of parenting above the ideal (both a father and a mother). Further, if (as is the central issue in America) this is a civil rights issue, then when marriage is opened up to the LGBT crowd, polygamy will follow.

I guess you weren't one of "almost three hundred members of the Mormon Church" [URL="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/06/05/utah-mormons-march-in-their-hundreds-at-gay-pride-parade/"]marching in solidarity[/URL] in Salt Lake City at the weekend, Zeta-Flux?:grin:

You and I will never see eye-to-eye on the same sex marriage issue. But I still appreciate the insider-information you provide above.

If your negative assessment of the effect of Obama's support for same sex marriage on his re-election chances is accurate, and I can well imagine that it could be, then it does at least highlight the courageousness of his support now when he could have waited until after the coming election before voicing it.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;301341]
If your negative assessment of the effect of Obama's support for same sex marriage on his re-election chances is accurate, and I can well imagine that it could be, then it does at least highlight the courageousness of his support now when he could have waited until after the coming election before voicing it.[/QUOTE]

I don't usually tread in the SoapBox, but here's my :two cents:.

First, I seem to recall that in a general poll of random American adults, they were split more or less 50-50 on the issue. There probably was some selection bias, but even if Obama's chances are hurt, they won't be hurt that much. Second, didn't he come out in support because his VP Mr. Biden accidentally gave his view on it? :razz:

Third:
[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;301216]Those for it view it as a "civil rights" issue. Those against it view it as a "changing the family structure" issue.

Those against gay marriage for this reason will not be led to want to change the definition of marriage after seeing gay neighbors any more than seeing single parents succeeding in raising children would lead them to want to promote that form of parenting above the ideal (both a father and a mother). Further, if (as is the central issue in America) this is a civil rights issue, then when marriage is opened up to the LGBT crowd, polygamy will follow.[/QUOTE]
The problem is, regular marriage as it is now in the US has become such a sham that it alone has led to millions of single parents raising kids alone. I'm terrified to think what the divorce rate is in America. The way I see it, "seeing single parents succeeding in raising children" is a sign that marriage as it is now is wrong and needs to change. The heterosexuals clearly aren't doing right; having been denied such, I suspect most (of the initial) homosexual marriages will be much more love-ful (what's the right word there?) than your average "normal" marriage.

I used to be against gay marriage, or at least gay-adoption-of-kids, fearing the "oh, what does your mommy/daddy do?" -- "I have two dads/moms" -- "Weirdo! (insert much teasing, insulting and bullying here)". Since I stated that view in a class on our constitution, however, I've heard mostly good things about the adoptions that have gone through. I would still maintain that two loving gay parents can provide more of a childhood than a single parent of any sort are capable of. In the near term outlook then, I think that gay marriage can be nothing but a good thing for society.

Edit: tl;dr: The "standard family nucleus" derived from "normal" marriage is already dead, IMO. Gay marriage will help that nucleus recover somewhat.

Addendum: Even if polygamy were un-outlawed after gay marriage was legalized, what's wrong with that?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;301341]I guess you weren't one of "almost three hundred members of the Mormon Church" [URL="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/06/05/utah-mormons-march-in-their-hundreds-at-gay-pride-parade/"]marching in solidarity[/URL] in Salt Lake City at the weekend, Zeta-Flux?:grin:[/quote]No. But that's not to say I'm opposed to all things LGBTQ.

[quote]You and I will never see eye-to-eye on the same sex marriage issue. But I still appreciate the insider-information you provide above.[/quote]I live to serve.

[quote]If your negative assessment of the effect of Obama's support for same sex marriage on his re-election chances is accurate, and I can well imagine that it could be, then it does at least highlight the courageousness of his support now when he could have waited until after the coming election before voicing it.[/QUOTE]I wish that were the case. If it were, I would respect Obama more.

The reality is that before Obama ran for president he was for SSM. Only when running for president did his position change to "evolving". While President for the last 3 years he has been against every constitutional amendment against SSM while publicly being against SSM and for states deciding this issue. Every action he has taken has been for SSM, including deliberately 'defending' DOMA badly, then not defending it at all, etc... As Dubslow said, one of the major reasons for his evolution back to being for SSM was Biden's slip.

Further, his evolution to supporting SSM still hasn't been complete. At least publicly he still supports the idea that states should decide; and that this isn't a civil rights issue.

So, in other words, its mostly political.

Personally, I would bet that this will make no difference one way or the other in the election (I agree with Dubslow there).

--------------

Dubslow,

If you do want me to try and answer your questions, feel free to move them to the SSM post in the Soap Box. Otherwise, I'll treat them as rhetorical. :-)

Cheers,
Zeta-Flux

While I don't for one moment doubt that Obama will have political considerations in mind when he opens his mouth about anything, SSM being no exception, I just want to query, or comment on, a couple of things you say, Zeta-Flux.
[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;301350]The reality is that before Obama ran for president he was for SSM. Only when running for president did his position change to "evolving".[/QUOTE]
This is the first I've heard of Obama's previous support for SSM. Do you know of any online evidence?
[QUOTE]While President for the last 3 years he has been against every constitutional amendment against SSM while publicly being against SSM and for states deciding this issue. Every action he has taken has been for SSM, including deliberately 'defending' DOMA badly, then not defending it at all, etc...[/QUOTE]Yes. There is a difference, of course, between supporting the rights of individual states to regulate the issue without the millstone of a constitutional ban around their necks, and yourself advocating the opening of marriage to same sex couples.
[QUOTE]As Dubslow said, one of the major reasons for his evolution back to being for SSM was Biden's slip.[/QUOTE]I have trouble believing that Joe Biden was suffering from some sort of unguarded moment when he voiced his support for opening marriage to same sex couples, even if Dubslow (whose personal expressed support for opening marriage is very welcome to me b.t.w. :tu:) and you both think he did make a mistake. Surely no politician is going to say anything on such a contentious issue as this without thinking very carefully about it first. The subject has "political minefield" written all over it. While respecting the view that you and Dubslow have that Biden blundered, I must beg to differ.