I’m sure he’s convinced himself that is the one reason he just won’t make it to the big chair…
I’d love to see Newt fail because he is a cheating hypocrite. Unfortunately, I’m going to have to settle for seeing Newt fail because he’s a never-right, objectionable, unlikable, nationally unelectable shithead.
Sure, but you’d be deaf afterwards. I have a strong suspicion she’ll be shrieking (incorrect) bible verses in your ear the whole time.
-Joe
Nice!
Newt wants to change it to, “…marriage between one man and one woman at a time.”
And the addendum he wants is, “A man may not have more than 4 wives in his lifetime.” Like an extra hole in his belt, he wants a little more room to expand.
I know! Nancy Pelosi told her she’d have to sign it before she read it.
…and if he will not do justice to the four wives, then he should limit himself to one wife only or the amount of women that his right hand possesses.
Or maybe not … 
That is sooooo going to come back and bite them in the ass. I want to see whatever nimrod that signed this trash debate Obama. The backpedaling and obfuscation that will occur in front of a live TV audience will be fun to watch.
It’s almost impossible to believe that more than one person read through the whole thing before they posted it and asked Bachmann to sign it. No one advised them the whole thing was a bad idea and maybe they should check some of the language with someone who can actually goes out in public?
Of course two-parent households were more common back then. Where were they going to go? They were FUCKING SLAVES…owned by Christians, of course.
It’s only a vow…it’s not like you should really be held to it…
Who has time to read stuff when you adopting 23 kids and curing the gays??
Or at all evidently; the bit about slavery was the first line of the document.
Ouch! Sprite out the nose on that one!
I’d be interested in knowing where they got their info on slave families. I followed the link but it was just to a document that, not surprisingly, said that same thing but without cite.
As most people who don’t confuse John Wayne and John Wayne Gacey would know, it wasn’t at all uncommon at all for slave parents to live on separate plantations even while they were still together. Any slave children born were the property of whoever owned the mother- the father had no rights, and of course families were separated all the time.
There were absolutely no laws preventing husband and wife from being sold apart and their wedding vows often included the line “Till death or distance do us part”. While there were laws in some states preventing the separation of mother and child before the child was of a certain age (10 in some states, up to 14 in others) these were on par with the “you can’t bathe a mule in the bathtub” type laws as far as how stringently they were observed. Do the math: the only person likely to get majorly upset if the law was broken were the slave mother and her child[ren], and neither of them could legally bring charges, so it was 100%up to the discretion of the slave owner or his/her heirs. (Death of the owner was when families were very often separated.)
Not once in the the census were slaves listed by name or by family relationships, just strictly by number and age. In 1850 and 1860 Slave Schedules, which were more detailed by far than in previous censuses, the only name listed was the name of the owner; for the slaves themselves they recorded gender, age, and color (B for black, M for mulatto). If you had on the records that John Smith owns 10 slaves and they are
Male, 50, B
Female, 42, B
Female, 39, B
Male, 39, M
Female, 25, B
Male, 18, B
Female, 15, M
Female, 12, B
Male, 4, B
Male, 8/12, M {8/12 means 8 months}
There is absolutely no way of knowing what, if any, relationship they were to one another. The infant above might belong to any one of females 15 and above, and mulatto might mean it had a white father or mulatto parents. I’ve seen many many slave schedules, there’s no variation- and for really big plantations where there were hundreds of slaves, it’s even more obfuscated.
About the best you could possibly do if you really wanted a study of slave families would be to examine the private records of slaveowners who kept detailed records that survived to the present. Even then you’d only be able to make a statistical study of X number of plantations and it would be impossible to extrapolate it to encompass the whole slave population. One thing you learn when you study plantation records is that if you’ve seen one plantation you’ve seen one plantation: how they did things on Tara might be completely different from Twelve Oaks or Mimosa or Fair Oaks or whatever.
Longwinded response to a comment nobody made, but I hate people who talk out of their ass where history is concerned.
Well Grumpy Smurf and I are twins, but I’ll dial it back some and go back to yelling at trees.
Bolding mine.
I certainly don’t give a shit what some of you assholes think.
Glad we got that cleared up.
There was a footnote to a study published in 2005 that had demographics from 1880, after slavery was abolished: Lorraine Blackman, Obie Clayton, Norval Glenn, Linda Malone-Colon, and Alex Roberts, “The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans: A Comprehensive Literature Review,” Institute for American Values, 2005 (www.americanvalues.org/pdfs/consequences_of_marriage.pdf).
This column dissects their claim: Michele Bachmann | Marriage Vow | Slavery
You are aware of SDMB Rule #1, are you not?
“Don’t talk to the cops or you’ll get whacked”?
Assuming zoid is not a tree, that’s got to be the shortest lived offer to change one’s behavior I’ve ever seen.
A Forbes blogger interviewed Dr. Lorraine Blackman, the author of that 2005 study.
The blogger follows up his report on the Family Leader’s retraction:
Trying to Recover From Slavery Furor, Bachmann Repeats the Error
