Reverend Keith Ratliff, president of the Iowa/Nebraska branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said today that he may leave the organization because of the national board’s public support for same-sex marriage rights.

UPDATE: Comments from two three of the NAACP local branch presidents in Iowa are below.

Ratliff serves on the NAACP national board but did not attend the May 19 meeting in Miami, at which the board approved this resolution:

The NAACP Constitution affirmatively states our objective to ensure the “political, educational, social and economic equality” of all people. Therefore, the NAACP has opposed and will continue to oppose any national, state, local policy or legislative initiative that seeks to codify discrimination or hatred into the law or to remove the Constitutional rights of LGBT citizens. We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Further, we strongly affirm the religious freedoms of all people as protected by the First Amendment.

Yesterday two national leaders of the NAACP sought to clarify the scope and significance of the board’s decision.

Laying out the organization’s guiding principles of political, educational, social and economic equality for all people, and challenging discrimination under the law, Chairman of the NAACP Board of Directors Roslyn Brock said that their support for the right of same-sex couples to marry is about equal treatment in the eyes of government.

“The NAACP did not issue its support of marriage equality from a personal, moral or religious perspective,” said Brock, speaking from the organization’s Baltimore headquarters. “We deeply respect differences of personal conscience on the religious definition of marriage, and we strongly affirm the religious freedom of all as protected by the First Amendment. As the nation’s leading and oldest civil rights organization, it is not our role, nor our intent, to impress how any place of worship can act in its own house.”

With that, Brock explained that the NAACP board voted from the perspective of the Constitution. “This history and commitment to separation of church and state continues as we stand for equality — marriage equality under the law,” she said.

NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous added that the board’s vote is not much of a change from past positions that it has taken on the matter of same-sex marriage. In addition to individual leaders who have spoken in favor of allowing gay people the right to marry (including Jealous and Chairman Emeritus Julian Bond), the organization has officially opposed anti-marriage-equality laws on several occasions, including high-profile ballot measures in North Carolina and California as well as the Defense of Marriage Act, dating back to the mid-1990s.

“What’s changed is that this is the first time that we have made a full statement on marriage equality that goes beyond the circumstances of any proposed law or any one state,” said Jealous, stressing the NAACP’s responsibility to speak up on the civil rights issues of our time. “We feel it’s important that all understand our commitment to equality for all under the law [and] the Constitution, and our commitment to marriage equality specifically.”

Speaking as a private citizen and a Baptist minister, Ratliff appeared at public rallies opposing the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien decision in 2009. He also endorsed Bob Vander Plaats for governor, calling the Republican’s stance on marriage “an important factor” in that decision. For those reasons, I wondered how the Iowa/Nebraska NAACP president would react to the national board framing same-sex marriage as an equal-protection issue.

I have been unable to reach Ratliff by phone this week, but the reverend spoke with Jason Noble of the Des Moines Register today.

“Marriage equality, for me, is between a man and a woman, period. There is no other definition for me,” Ratliff said Tuesday.

The national board’s action has the effect of setting policy for local NAACP chapters, he said, and that’s leading him to reconsider his involvement with the group.

“I’m praying over the matter,” he said, “and I have to make a decision for myself as to whether I’m going to stay in the organization or not.”

He added that he wasn’t sure when he would make that decision, but said he wanted to talk with the national office first.

There are plenty of issues facing African Americans and American society at large that are more pressing than same-sex marriage, Ratliff said, including those relating to education, the economy, voting rights and criminal justice.

I sought comment today from the presidents of all the NAACP branches in Iowa. I was unable to reach several branch leaders. Black Hawk County branch president Sharon A. Goodson and Davenport branch president Vera Kelly had no comment.

Cedar Rapids branch president Dedric Doolin, who also serves as statewide secretary for the Iowa/Nebraska NAACP, told me that he has “concerns about how that decision was made,” because the national board didn’t follow the “normal protocol.” Doolin noted that branch leaders were “caught off guard,” since local branches were not asked for input and had no idea the board planned to consider this resolution last weekend.

The NAACP’s 2012 national convention will take place in Houston, Texas, from July 7 through July 12. According to Doolin, the national convention is typically the venue where delegates debate and vote on resolutions. In more than 15 years of being involved with the association, Doolin could not recall an example of the NAACP’s national board taking a stand on such a major issue without input from the branches or a vote by national convention delegates.

Doolin declined to state a personal opinion regarding same-sex marriage rights and emphasized that he has not had a chance to discuss the resolution with his local branch. However, he has fielded calls from NAACP members who were “shocked” and concerned by the lack of communication prior to the board’s vote. Doolin told me, “I’m rethinking my involvement with the organization,” adding that he is seeking answers from the national office regarding the timing of the board’s action. Again, he emphasized that his concern is centered on the lack of input from local branches. The process “doesn’t sit well” with him.

The Iowa/Nebraska NAACP is scheduled to hold its annual statewide conference in Des Moines on June 9. No doubt the national board’s resolution supporting marriage equality will be on the agenda.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: Radio Iowa has more comments from Ratliff:

“We were not sent out any information that this was going to come up for a vote at that particular May board meeting. It was something that was brought up while people were there. I had other commitments so I could not make the May board meeting, but it was not anything we knew about ahead of time,” Ratliff says. […]

“I think there’s a lot of other issues that are before the NAACP, than to make same-sex marriage a topic priority issue that needed to be vote don at that particular meeting.” Ratliff says there are things like the drop out rate and the number of African Americans in prison that should be the focus of the organization. […]

The pastor says he is not the only one who is upset by the vote of the national board. “I have received a number of phone calls from people who are upset over the fact that this vote came down the way it did,” Ratliff says.

“There are obviously people who are certainly in support of it. But there are many people, the people who have called me, have said that they are really shocked that this has taken place, and that they don’t believe that the NAACP should be wrapped up in this particular issue.”

SECOND UPDATE: On May 23 I spoke with Flora Lee, president of the NAACP branch in Sioux City. She noted that the mission statement of the NAACP opposes discrimination for all people. She agrees that marriage equality is a civil rights issue and said that “I support the board” in its vote for the marriage resolution. She added that only two of the NAACP’s national board members voted against that resolution.

Lee told me that the Sioux City branch discussed the marriage issue, along with the history of oppression and discrimination, at a meeting last night. She said there was a “consensus” among branch members supporting the national board’s action as consistent with the vision and mission of the NAACP.

I asked Lee whether she was concerned about the lack of input from state and local branches before the NAACP board took action. She said she is “not upset” not to have heard in advance that the issue would be considered.

Regarding Reverend Ratliff’s position on marriage, Lee said she respects his right to speak out as an individual and a pastor, and suggested that whatever Ratliff decides regarding his future with the NAACP would be a “difficult decision” for him.

THIRD UPDATE: Arnold Woods, president of the Des Moines NAACP branch, told me on May 23 that he shared information from national with members of the Des Moines branch at their regular meeting on May 22. Those talking points were similar to the comments I quoted above from Roslyn Block: the NAACP did not take a moral or religious position supporting same-sex marriage and respects everyone’s right to a personal opinion regarding marriage. In addition, the NAACP supports religious freedoms protected by the First Amendment. Woods declined to state his personal belief regarding same-sex marriage but said he is a deacon at Faith Missionary Baptist Church in Des Moines.

I asked Woods how he would characterize his local branch members’ reaction to the national board’s decision. He responded that state and local affiliates go along with the policy of the national office. When NAACP officials speak on behalf of the organization, they speak with one voice. Again, he stated that everyone is free to maintain their own opinions about the marriage issue.

I asked Woods whether he was concerned about the lack of advance communication and input. From his perspective, national NAACP “has their own protocol,” which doesn’t require confirmation by state and local branches before the national board acts. However, he acknowledged that it’s “fair” to say most people involved with the NAACP would prefer to have new issues and resolutions go to the floor of the national convention.

Woods declined to comment on Ratliff’s remarks to the news media yesterday, because he hadn’t had a chance to read exactly what Ratliff said.