Black church leaders: Gay marriage ‘not a civil rights issue’ [VIDEO]

[George Whorewell]

[Soul Crusher]

Black pastors group demands meeting with Obama over gay marriage

By Stephen Dinan

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/jun/1/black-pastors-group-demands-meeting-obama-over-gay



June 1, 2012, 12:47PM


The Coalition of African American Pastors has demanded a meeting with President Obama to try to change his mind on his personal embrace of same-sex marriage.

The pastors fired off a letter this week to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. asking him to set up the meeting with the president, and painted their quest as a civil rights cause.

"I can promise you personally, as an organizer of the civil rights movement in Nashville, I did not march one inch, one foot, one yard for same-sex marriage," said Rev. William "Bill" Owens Sr., founder of the coalition and organizer of the letter.

While saying they are proud of Mr. Obama's success and calling him the "fulfillment of our dreams for our sons," Mr. Owens and the 19 other religious leaders who signed his letter said the president's evolution to embrace same-sex marriage "has broken our hearts by using his power and position to endorse as a civil right something that is simply wrong."

Pollsters have wondered how Mr. Obama's decision to embrace same-sex marriage would play with various segments of voters, and in particular with black church-going Christians, who generally tell pollsters they support the president but many of whom are also opposed to gay marriage.

"Some things are bigger than the next election," the pastors said in their letter.

← return to Inside Politics

[Dos Equis]

Black pastors group demands meeting with Obama over gay marriage

By Stephen Dinan

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/jun/1/black-pastors-group-demands-meeting-obama-over-gay



June 1, 2012, 12:47PM


The Coalition of African American Pastors has demanded a meeting with President Obama to try to change his mind on his personal embrace of same-sex marriage.

The pastors fired off a letter this week to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. asking him to set up the meeting with the president, and painted their quest as a civil rights cause.

"I can promise you personally, as an organizer of the civil rights movement in Nashville, I did not march one inch, one foot, one yard for same-sex marriage," said Rev. William "Bill" Owens Sr., founder of the coalition and organizer of the letter.

While saying they are proud of Mr. Obama's success and calling him the "fulfillment of our dreams for our sons," Mr. Owens and the 19 other religious leaders who signed his letter said the president's evolution to embrace same-sex marriage "has broken our hearts by using his power and position to endorse as a civil right something that is simply wrong."

Pollsters have wondered how Mr. Obama's decision to embrace same-sex marriage would play with various segments of voters, and in particular with black church-going Christians, who generally tell pollsters they support the president but many of whom are also opposed to gay marriage.

"Some things are bigger than the next election," the pastors said in their letter.

← return to Inside Politics

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. 

[The True Adonis]

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. 

I hope he loses their support.  They are complete morons anyways.  They belong in the stone age.

[Mr. Magoo]

The Coalition of African American Pastors has demanded a meeting with President Obama to try to change his mind on his personal embrace of same-sex marriage.

....religious leaders who signed his letter said the president's evolution to embrace same-sex marriage .... "has broken our hearts by using his power and position to endorse as a civil right something that is simply wrong."

Pollsters have wondered how Mr. Obama's decision to embrace same-sex marriage would play with various segments of voters,

Is this true? I watched only a portion of Obama's speech but I didnt see him "embrace" same-sex marriage. Saying something should be legally permissible is different than embracing it.

In regards to what I underlined...why does the preacher assume that morally wrongful acts can't be civil rights? An analogy that comes to mind is lying. Lying may be a morally wrongful act (according to christians) but some might argue that being able to tell a lie (in itself, not in court, etc) without legal punishment is a civil right. One example of a morally wrongful act that some argue should still be a civil right.

[Dos Equis]

Is this true? I watched only a portion of Obama's speech but I didnt see him "embrace" same-sex marriage. Saying something should be legally permissible is different than embracing it.

In regards to what I underlined...why does the preacher assume that morally wrongful acts can't be civil rights? An analogy that comes to mind is lying. Lying may be a morally wrongful act (according to christians) but some might argue that being able to tell a lie (in itself, not in court, etc) without legal punishment is a civil right. One example of a morally wrongful act that some argue should still be a civil right.

Lying is morally wrongful act according to Christians?  How did you reach that conclusion? 

Do you think lying is a wrongful act? 

[Soul Crusher]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

President Obama Issues LGBT Pride Month Proclamation
Towleroad ^ | June 1, 2012 | Andy Towle
Posted on June 2, 2012 3:46:26 PM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet

President Obama's LGBT Pride Month proclamation, just in from the White House:

A PROCLAMATION

From generation to generation, ordinary Americans have led a proud and inexorable march toward freedom, fairness, and full equality under the law -- not just for some, but for all. Ours is a heritage forged by those who organized, agitated, and advocated for change; who wielded love stronger than hate and hope more powerful than insult or injury; who fought to build for themselves and their families a Nation where no one is a second-class citizen, no one is denied basic rights, and all of us are free to live and love as we see fit.

The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)community has written a proud chapter in this fundamentally American story. From brave men and women who came out and spoke out, to union and faith leaders who rallied for equality, to activists and advocates who challenged unjust laws and marched on Washington, LGBT Americans and allies have achieved what once seemed inconceivable. This month, we reflect on their enduring legacy, celebrate the movement that has made progress possible, and recommit to securing the fullest blessings of freedom for all Americans.

Since I took office, my Administration has worked to broaden opportunity, advance equality, and level the playing field for LGBT people and communities. We have fought to secure justice for all under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and we have taken action to end housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We expanded hospital visitation rights for LGBT patients and their loved ones, and under the Affordable Care Act, we ensured that insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to someone just because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Because we understand that LGBT rights are human rights, we continue to engage with the international community in promoting and protecting the rights of LGBT persons around the world. Because we repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans can serve their country openly, honestly, and without fear of losing their jobs because of whom they love. And because we must treat others the way we want to be treated, I personally believe in marriage equality for same-sex couples.

More remains to be done to ensure every single American is treated equally, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Moving forward, my Administration will continue its work to advance the rights of LGBT Americans. This month, as we reflect on how far we have come and how far we have yet to go, let us recall that the progress we have made is built on the words and deeds of ordinary Americans. Let us pay tribute to those who came before us, and those who continue their work today; and let us rededicate ourselves to a task that is unending -- the pursuit of a Nation where all are equal, and all have the full and unfettered opportunity to pursue happiness and live openly and freely.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2012 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.

I call upon the people of the United States to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists, and to celebrate the great diversity of the American people.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth.

BARACK OBAMA









Gaybama kneepadding for cash

[Dos Equis]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

President Obama Issues LGBT Pride Month Proclamation
Towleroad ^ | June 1, 2012 | Andy Towle
Posted on June 2, 2012 3:46:26 PM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet

President Obama's LGBT Pride Month proclamation, just in from the White House:

A PROCLAMATION

From generation to generation, ordinary Americans have led a proud and inexorable march toward freedom, fairness, and full equality under the law -- not just for some, but for all. Ours is a heritage forged by those who organized, agitated, and advocated for change; who wielded love stronger than hate and hope more powerful than insult or injury; who fought to build for themselves and their families a Nation where no one is a second-class citizen, no one is denied basic rights, and all of us are free to live and love as we see fit.

The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)community has written a proud chapter in this fundamentally American story. From brave men and women who came out and spoke out, to union and faith leaders who rallied for equality, to activists and advocates who challenged unjust laws and marched on Washington, LGBT Americans and allies have achieved what once seemed inconceivable. This month, we reflect on their enduring legacy, celebrate the movement that has made progress possible, and recommit to securing the fullest blessings of freedom for all Americans.

Since I took office, my Administration has worked to broaden opportunity, advance equality, and level the playing field for LGBT people and communities. We have fought to secure justice for all under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and we have taken action to end housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We expanded hospital visitation rights for LGBT patients and their loved ones, and under the Affordable Care Act, we ensured that insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to someone just because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Because we understand that LGBT rights are human rights, we continue to engage with the international community in promoting and protecting the rights of LGBT persons around the world. Because we repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans can serve their country openly, honestly, and without fear of losing their jobs because of whom they love. And because we must treat others the way we want to be treated, I personally believe in marriage equality for same-sex couples.

More remains to be done to ensure every single American is treated equally, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Moving forward, my Administration will continue its work to advance the rights of LGBT Americans. This month, as we reflect on how far we have come and how far we have yet to go, let us recall that the progress we have made is built on the words and deeds of ordinary Americans. Let us pay tribute to those who came before us, and those who continue their work today; and let us rededicate ourselves to a task that is unending -- the pursuit of a Nation where all are equal, and all have the full and unfettered opportunity to pursue happiness and live openly and freely.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2012 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.

I call upon the people of the United States to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists, and to celebrate the great diversity of the American people.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth.

BARACK OBAMA









Gaybama kneepadding for cash

That's his passion. 

He left "transgendered" and "gender identity" out of his comment about serving in the military.  Are they included?

[Mr. Magoo]

Lying is morally wrongful act according to Christians?  How did you reach that conclusion? 

Do you think lying is a wrongful act? 

"These six things doth the lord hate, yea seven are an abomination unto him; a proud look, a lying tongue..."

I typed that from memory and I'm sure theres more anti-lying stuff in the bible. Assuming morality is dependent on God, and God hates lying, then lying would therefore be morally wrong, right? Also, I've heard several christians say lying is morally wrong. I could just have easily used other sins for my analogy to show the needed distinction between moral permissibility and legal permissibility. My point was that the preacher in the above letter failed to make that needed distinction.

[Dos Equis]

"These six things doth the lord hate, yea seven are an abomination unto him; a proud look, a lying tongue..."

I typed that from memory and I'm sure theres more anti-lying stuff in the bible. Assuming morality is dependent on God, and God hates lying, then lying would therefore be morally wrong, right? Also, I've heard several christians say lying is morally wrong. I could just have easily used other sins for my analogy to show the needed distinction between moral permissibility and legal permissibility. My point was that the preacher in the above letter failed to make that needed distinction.

You said lying is morally wrong according to Christians.  How is this exclusive to Christians?  The commandment about truth telling is part of the law, school, workplace, child rearing, marriages, friendships, recreational activities, medicine, reasearch, etc.  Essentially every part of society.

[Mr. Magoo]

You said lying is morally wrong according to Christians.  How is this exclusive to Christians?  The commandment about truth telling is part of the law, school, workplace, child rearing, marriages, friendships, recreational activities, medicine, reasearch, etc.  Essentially every part of society.

I never said it was. Read more carefully.

 I said that it was one example, among many, of something that, according to christians, is clearly morally wrong. However, imagine a politician who proposed a bill that said "If any person of any age is suspected of telling a lie, the police will force that person to hook up to a brain scanner, etc etc, and there will be legal punishment (jail, prison, etc) towards any person discovered to have lied". I imagine that you would be against such a proposal. Many people probably would. They would feel that it is not government's business to do such things. My point is that this is almost perfectly similar to the homosexual marriage ban. It's a sin, it's rampant, it's a choice (for my analogy), etc. Yet many would say "Even though lying may be morally wrong sometimes (according to Christians, all the time), it is not necessarily the state's function to enforce such things". Which brings me back to my original point, there is a needed distinction to be made between morally wrongful acts and the rule of law. The preacher assumes that all morally wrongful acts should not be legally permissible. Upon reflection this doesn't seem to hold; it needs clarifying.

[Dos Equis]

I never said it was. Read more carefully.

 I said that it was one example, among many, of something that, according to christians, is clearly morally wrong. However, imagine a politician who proposed a bill that said "If any person of any age is suspected of telling a lie, the police will force that person to hook up to a brain scanner, etc etc, and there will be legal punishment (jail, prison, etc) towards any person discovered to have lied". I imagine that you would be against such a proposal. Many people probably would. They would feel that it is not government's business to do such things. My point is that this is almost perfectly similar to the homosexual marriage ban. It's a sin, it's rampant, it's a choice (for my analogy), etc. Yet many would say "Even though lying may be morally wrong sometimes (according to Christians, all the time), it is not necessarily the state's function to enforce such things". Which brings me back to my original point, there is a needed distinction to be made between morally wrongful acts and the rule of law. The preacher assumes that all morally wrongful acts should not be legally permissible. Upon reflection this doesn't seem to hold; it needs clarifying.

It's wrong according to pretty much all of society, so your original statement is, at best, unclear.   You're attempting to straddle the fence.  As a general principle, lying is wrong according to all of society (not just Christians) all the time. 

Did the preacher say all immoral acts must be unlawful?  I didn't hear him say that, but I may have missed it. 

If he was saying morality is part of the law, he's right.  It is.

[Mr. Magoo]

It's wrong according to pretty much all of society, so your original statement is, at best, unclear.   You're attempting to straddle the fence.  As a general principle, lying is wrong according to all of society (not just Christians) all the time. 

Did the preacher say all immoral acts must be unlawful?  I didn't hear him say that, but I may have missed it. 

If he was saying morality is part of the law, he's right.  It is.

you can read can't you? lol Attributing something to a group of people is different than saying only those people have that attribute. (Example: All professional football players wear shoes does NOT mean that only professional football players wear shoes). Can't believe a grown man would confuse that.

I didn't say the preacher SAID morally wrongful acts shouldn't be legally permissible. I said he assumed it. He failed to make the distinction between morally wrongful acts and legal rule (My example: Some people would object to legal enforcing of morality on the grounds that the government, by enforcing it, would be encroaching on their "rights" such as a right to privacy).

Your last line is not relevant because you used the phrase "part of". Part of is not the issue here. The issue is "If something is morally wrong, is it therefore justified to use the law to enforce acting in accordance with morality?" I'm saying the preacher is assuming the answer is "yes" when my hypothetical example of the Lying Policy shows that it may not be yes.

[Dos Equis]

you can read can't you? lol Attributing something to a group of people is different than saying only those people have that attribute. (Example: All professional football players wear shoes does NOT mean that only professional football players wear shoes). Can't believe a grown man would confuse that.

I didn't say the preacher SAID morally wrongful acts shouldn't be legally permissible. I said he assumed it. He failed to make the distinction between morally wrongful acts and legal rule (My example: Some people would object to legal enforcing of morality on the grounds that the government, by enforcing it, would be encroaching on their "rights" such as a right to privacy).

Your last line is not relevant because you used the phrase "part of". Part of is not the issue here. The issue is "If something is morally wrong, is it therefore justified to use the law to enforce acting in accordance with morality?" I'm saying the preacher is assuming the answer is "yes" when my hypothetical example of the Lying Policy shows that it may not be yes.

You know how to write don't you?  Your parenthetical was a qualifier that made it appear as though it was something unique to Christians.  You actually did it twice. 

Your shoe example is fine, but it isn't like your lying hypothetical.  A closer example would be:  "you should wear shoes (according to professional football players)."  That implies the idea is unique to football players.  In any event, if you don't understand the distinction you aren't going to learn it from a stranger on a message board.

How do you know the preacher made an assumption?

[Mr. Magoo]

You know how to write don't you?  Your parenthetical was a qualifier that made it appear as though it was something unique to Christians.  You actually did it twice. 

Your shoe example is fine, but it isn't like your lying hypothetical.  A closer example would be:  "you should wear shoes (according to professional football players)."  That implies the idea is unique to football players.  In any event, if you don't understand the distinction you aren't going to learn it from a stranger on a message board.

How do you know the preacher made an assumption?

If I gave that impression, it wasn't my intent. I was simply attributing something to christians. My shoe example isn't related in any way to my lying hypothetical. My shoe example was only to show the difference between attributing something to a group of people versus saying only that group of people has a certain attribute.

And I don't KNOW the preacher made the assumption. Can't insert a theory of knowledge here. I'm saying it appears he did and I'm arguing that there needs to be a needed distinction (THAT is the point of my argument). Let's turn this around from speculation about the preacher. Let's return to my lying policy example. I gave an example of a clearly morally wrongful act, it's rampant in society (I think studies show that the typical person lies in conversation at least once in every 10 minutes but I may be wrong), it's a choice.  Making it illegal and attaching a stiff penalty to it would deter people from lying. Now I"m assuming you think homosexual marriage should not be legally permissible (note the wording), would you be in support of my hypothetical Lying Act?

[Dos Equis]

If I gave that impression, it wasn't my intent. I was simply attributing something to christians. My shoe example isn't related in any way to my lying hypothetical. My shoe example was only to show the difference between attributing something to a group of people versus saying only that group of people has a certain attribute.

And I don't KNOW the preacher made the assumption. Can't insert a theory of knowledge here. I'm saying it appears he did and I'm arguing that there needs to be a needed distinction (THAT is the point of my argument). Let's turn this around from speculation about the preacher. Let's return to my lying policy example. I gave an example of a clearly morally wrongful act, it's rampant in society (I think studies show that the typical person lies in conversation at least once in every 10 minutes but I may be wrong), it's a choice.  Making it illegal and attaching a stiff penalty to it would deter people from lying. Now I"m assuming you think homosexual marriage should not be legally permissible (note the wording), would you be in support of my hypothetical Lying Act?

No.  It's unnecessary.  It's already against the law to lie in many instances.  Remember the trouble Clinton was in? 

It can get you fired from almost any job.  You can lose your friendships, marriage, security clearances, political career.  You can get kicked out of school. 

What's left to reasonably regulate when it comes to lying in our society?

[Mr. Magoo]

No.  It's unnecessary.  It's already against the law to lie in many instances.  Remember the trouble Clinton was in?  

It can get you fired from almost any job.  You can lose your friendships, marriage, security clearances, political career.  You can get kicked out of school.  

What's left to reasonably regulate when it comes to lying in our society?

Good response. Let's say the policy dealt with everyday lying. Not just in the workplace or in court. Any suspicion of lying, call the police, they take the person down to the courthouse to hook up to a brain scanner supplied by the federal government, etc etc. You can build in all these little scenarios to make the situation seem plausible. Or to take another, more clear example. Do you think we should use the law to deter people from believing in false gods? Clearly morally wrong according the Bible, lot of people do it, god hates it, etc. Or should we lock people in jail who commit adultery? etc. These are just examples of things that may be morally wrong (or to put in other words "Against God's will"), but perhaps should not necessarily be legally impermissible. Tying that back in to homosexual marriages. Why assume any morally wrongful act should be made legally impermissible?

[Dos Equis]

Good response. Let's say the policy dealt with everyday lying. Not just in the workplace or in court. Any suspicion of lying, call the police, they take the person down to the courthouse to hook up to a brain scanner supplied by the federal government, etc etc. You can build in all these little scenarios to make the situation seem plausible. Or to take another, more clear example. Do you think we should use the law to deter people from believing in false gods? Clearly morally wrong according the Bible, lot of people do it, god hates it, etc. Or should we lock people in jail who commit adultery? etc. These are just examples of things that may be morally wrong (or to put in other words "Against God's will", but perhaps should not necessarily be legally impermissible. Tying that back in to homosexual marriages. Why assume any morally wrongful act should be made legally impermissible?

Again, unnecessary because there are already adeqtuate ways to deal with lying in everyday life.  Arresting people as you suggested is not reasonable. 

Adultery isn't a crime pretty much anywhere except the military.  Might be a few startes where it's still on the books? 

Morally wrongful acts are already unlawful in many instances, so I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. 

[MCWAY]

Again, unnecessary because there are already adeqtuate ways to deal with lying in everyday life.  Arresting people as you suggested is not reasonable. 

Adultery isn't a crime pretty much anywhere except the military.  Might be a few startes where it's still on the books? 

Morally wrongful acts are already unlawful in many instances, so I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. 

It's more of a tack-on foul, particularly in divorce cases. In certain countries, however, it's still a capital offense.

[Mr. Magoo]

Again, unnecessary because there are already adeqtuate ways to deal with lying in everyday life.  Arresting people as you suggested is not reasonable. 

Adultery isn't a crime pretty much anywhere except the military.  Might be a few startes where it's still on the books? 

Morally wrongful acts are already unlawful in many instances, so I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. 

That was what I was trying to get at. Why would such policies be unreasonable? Seem perfectly justifiable according to the logic I hear from some of those opposing legalizing same sex marriage. They argue about why it's a sin, not why it should not be legal. To me, this implies that they believe all sins should be made illegal. This is my focus. Others seem to point to consequentialist arguments that have not yet come to fruition in any country that has legalized same sex marriage, but that's not what I'm focused on.

I wasn't asking about what the law is, but what the law should be. Should law be used to enforce christian morality? I put "christian" in there because of this thread on same-sex marriage. But it can easily be expanded to include agreed upon morality beyond what christians believe, like should the law put adulterers in jail. This is about the role morality should play with the law.

[Dos Equis]

That was what I was trying to get at. Why would such policies be unreasonable? Seem perfectly justifiable according to the logic I hear from some of those opposing legalizing same sex marriage. They argue about why it's a sin, not why it should not be legal. To me, this implies that they believe all sins should be made illegal. This is my focus. Others seem to point to consequentialist arguments that have not yet come to fruition in any country that has legalized same sex marriage, but that's not what I'm focused on.

I wasn't asking about what the law is, but what the law should be. Should law be used to enforce christian morality? I put "christian" in there because of this thread on same-sex marriage. But it can easily be expanded to include agreed upon morality beyond what christians believe, like should the law put adulterers in jail. This is about the role morality should play with the law.

They would be unreasonable, because as I previously said "there are already adeqtuate ways to deal with lying in everyday life."

I haven't heard anyone say all sin should be illegal.  I've never said it.  I don't recall any Christian on the board saying it.  I don't think I've ever heard a Christian in real life say it. 

Morality is already part of the law (but I said that already too).  It's also part of everyday life.  For example, ever heard of a "morals clause" in contracts? 

[Mr. Magoo]

They would be unreasonable, because as I previously said "there are already adeqtuate ways to deal with lying in everyday life."

I haven't heard anyone say all sin should be illegal.  I've never said it.  I don't recall any Christian on the board saying it.  I don't think I've ever heard a Christian in real life say it. 

Morality is already part of the law (but I said that already too).  It's also part of everyday life.  For example, ever heard of a "morals clause" in contracts? 

once again, you are focused on the "is" part. This is not descriptive, but prescriptive. What the law should be, not what the law is. I've heard several people argue against homosexual marriage by arguing why it's a sin. They quote passages from the bible against homosexuality, and that's all they do. You don't see the hidden assumption here? "IF something in the bible is against God's will (or if something is a sin, etc) then it should be against the law". They seem to be focused on why it's a sin, not why sin should not be legal. You see the gap here that needs filling in?

[Dos Equis]

once again, you are focused on the "is" part. This is not descriptive, but prescriptive. What the law should be, not what the law is. I've heard several people argue against homosexual marriage by arguing why it's a sin. They quote passages from the bible against homosexuality, and that's all they do. You don't see the hidden assumption here? "IF something in the bible is against God's will (or if something is a sin, etc) then it should be against the law". They seem to be focused on why it's a sin, not why sin should not be legal. You see the gap here that needs filling in?

No.  I see an assumption you've made that doesn't jive with what I read and hear. 

[Soul Crusher]

'Heart-Broken' Black Pastors Want to Meet Obama Over Gay Marriage
Christian Post ^ | June 2, 2012 | Anugrah Kumar
Posted on June 2, 2012 5:59:09 PM EDT by NYer

Influential African-American pastors have requested Attorney General Eric Holder to grant them a meeting with President Barack Obama, saying he broke their hearts by endorsing gay marriage – "something that is simply wrong" – as a civil right.

"We pray for the President ... President Obama is the fulfillment of our dreams for our sons -- and he has broken our hearts by using his power and position to endorse as a civil right something that is simply wrong," the Rev. William Owens, founder and president of the Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP), wrote in a letter to Holder late Thursday.

The coalition, which comprises of leaders of the black church and civil rights leaders who marched with the Rev. Martin Luther King, decided to seek a meeting with Obama after Holder announced he would speak with 350 black pastors to inform them of their rights in speaking for the president without violating their 501(c)3 status.

Organizations with 501(c)3 status are not allowed to be involved in fundraising, political campaigning or lobbying.

"I would pray you have enough residual respect for this group of clergy, to agree to meet with us and other national leaders to discuss our concerns over your and President Obama's endorsement of gay marriage as a civil right," Owens said in the letter, signed by numerous black pastors. "Some things are bigger than the next election."

A day after voters in North Carolina approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage and civil unions by a large margin, Obama announced May 9 that he supports legalizing same-sex marriage. In response to Obama's stance, the CAAP started gathering signatures on a marriage pledge – signed by over 1,000 African-American clergy and Christians thus far.