Bachmann claims, rather amazingly, to have not seen the first bullet point for "The Marriage Vow," and the conservative group that put it forward is now trying to retreat, without retreating:
"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," said Julie Summa, a spokeswoman for the Family Leader. "We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow."
"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."
The pledge provides a footnote to support their claim, citing a 2005 study, The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans. I decided to ask one of the study's authors, Dr. Lorraine Blackman, what she thought of The Family Leader's "pro-family" interpretation of slavery."That's just wrong," she said. "It is a serious error."
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to email@example.com.