A social conservative Iowa group has retracted language regarding slavery from the opening of a presidential candidates' pledge, amid a growing controversy over the document that Michele Bachmann had signed and Rick Santorum committed to.
The original "marriage vow" from the Family Leader, unveiled last week, included a line at the opening of its preamble, which suggested that black children born into slavery were better off in terms of family life than African-American kids born today.
"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," read the preamble.
But this evening, amid growing questions aimed at Bachmann, Family Leader officials said they'd removed the slavery language from the preamble.
“After careful deliberation and wise insight and input from valued colleagues we deeply respect, we agree that the statement referencing children born into slavery can be misconstrued, and such misconstruction can detract from the core message of the Marriage Vow: that ALL of us must work to strengthen and support families and marriages between one woman and one man," the group's officials said in a statement. "We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow.”
Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann both committed to the pledge, and Bachmann was the first candidate to return the signed document, according to Family Leader officials.
A Bachmann spokeswoman said earlier Saturday that reports the congresswoman had signed a vow that contained the slavery language was wrong, noting it was not in the "vow" portion.
"She signed the 'candidate vow,' " campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart said, and distanced Bachmann from the preamble language, saying, "In no uncertain terms, Congresswoman Bachmann believes that slavery was horrible and economic enslavement is also horrible."
It wasn't clear whether Bachmann had read the "slavery" language in the preamble, but Stewart later added Bachmann "stands behind the candidate vow - which makes absolutely no reference to slavery."
The issue was gaining steam, with a Fox News headline suggesting the congresswoman was "standing by" a pledge that had an opening statement suggesting black families were in better shape during slavery.
In a phone interview, Summa said, "That was a preamble that the Family Leader came up with. I believe that they weren't signing off on the preamble portion, just on the campaign vow portion."
"We came up with the pledge and so we had no idea that people would misconstrue that," she said. "It was not meant to be racist or anything. it was just a fact that back in the days of slavery there was usually a husband and a wife...we were not saying at all that things are better for African-American children in slavery days than today."
She said she was "not at liberty to say" whether they'd heard from any of the campaigns to complain about the language. But she said that among the people the group had heard from was an African-American pastor, who opposed it.
She said she thought the candidates mostly heard about the vow through the press, and that she'd only gotten a direct request for it from one presidential hopeful. She said it wasn't Bachmann or Santorum, but a third person who hasn't signed it.
The original "marriage vow" from the Family Leader, unveiled last week, included a line at the opening of its preamble, which suggested that black children born into slavery were better off in terms of family life than African-American kids born today.
"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," read the preamble.
But this evening, amid growing questions aimed at Bachmann, Family Leader officials said they'd removed the slavery language from the preamble.
“After careful deliberation and wise insight and input from valued colleagues we deeply respect, we agree that the statement referencing children born into slavery can be misconstrued, and such misconstruction can detract from the core message of the Marriage Vow: that ALL of us must work to strengthen and support families and marriages between one woman and one man," the group's officials said in a statement. "We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow.”
Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann both committed to the pledge, and Bachmann was the first candidate to return the signed document, according to Family Leader officials.
A Bachmann spokeswoman said earlier Saturday that reports the congresswoman had signed a vow that contained the slavery language was wrong, noting it was not in the "vow" portion.
"She signed the 'candidate vow,' " campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart said, and distanced Bachmann from the preamble language, saying, "In no uncertain terms, Congresswoman Bachmann believes that slavery was horrible and economic enslavement is also horrible."
It wasn't clear whether Bachmann had read the "slavery" language in the preamble, but Stewart later added Bachmann "stands behind the candidate vow - which makes absolutely no reference to slavery."
The issue was gaining steam, with a Fox News headline suggesting the congresswoman was "standing by" a pledge that had an opening statement suggesting black families were in better shape during slavery.
In a phone interview, Summa said, "That was a preamble that the Family Leader came up with. I believe that they weren't signing off on the preamble portion, just on the campaign vow portion."
"We came up with the pledge and so we had no idea that people would misconstrue that," she said. "It was not meant to be racist or anything. it was just a fact that back in the days of slavery there was usually a husband and a wife...we were not saying at all that things are better for African-American children in slavery days than today."
She said she was "not at liberty to say" whether they'd heard from any of the campaigns to complain about the language. But she said that among the people the group had heard from was an African-American pastor, who opposed it.
She said she thought the candidates mostly heard about the vow through the press, and that she'd only gotten a direct request for it from one presidential hopeful. She said it wasn't Bachmann or Santorum, but a third person who hasn't signed it.
No comments:
Post a Comment