Evolution Revolution

NY Times reporter Michael Barbaro seems less than enthused about the NAACP publicly backing same-sex marriage as a civil right.

The largely symbolic move, made at the group’s meeting in Miami, puts the N.A.A.C.P. in line with President Obama, who endorsed gay marriage a little over a week ago. Given the timing, it is likely to be viewed as both a statement of principle as well as support for the president’s position in the middle of a closely contested presidential campaign. 

All but two of the organization’s board members, who include many religious leaders, backed a resolution supporting same-sex marriage, according to people told of the decision. 

Borrowing a term used by gay rights advocates, the resolution stated, “We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” 

In a statement, Roslyn M. Brock, chairwoman of the 64-member board, said, “We have and will oppose efforts to codify discrimination into law.” 

A spokesman for the group declined to discuss a breakdown of how the board members voted. 

Yawn, ho-hum, NAACP backs same-sex marriage, "largely symbolic", doesn't matter, etc.   Melissa Harris-Perry and guest Aisha Moodie-Mills put the decision in perspective:



Seems to me that there's a lot more to this decision.  Most notably, as Melissa asked here, will gay rights organizations like GLAAD and HRC now return the favor and back the NAACP's stance on stopping GOP vote suppression?

I wouldn't hold my breath.