The marriage vow pledge which Rep. Bachmannn signed seems in some ways contradictory. It demands rejection of Sharia Islam, but would staunchly support new regulation for fidelity to one’s spouse, and respect for the marriage bonds of others. An interpretation then is that the pledge might enforce some strong punishment for moral turpitude, which is precisely the sort of thing students around the world are fighting and dying to oppose. We recognize that ancient societies mixed legal and moral considerations into their legislations; many in the world are trying to end the stoning and hanging of promiscuous citizens, while evangelical candidates right here in the United States are moving gradually but surely in the direction of government enforcement of religious principles.
As to the earlier mentioned protection of service personnel (the Vander Plaats pledge does use the word “attracteds” and suggests the unwanted harassment may take place in restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, and so on), we find constraints for women serving in foreign countries, because they could become subject to torture, enslavement, or sexual leveraging.
Lastly, the pledge in question specifically mentions a “Fierce defense of the First Amendment's rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech” in anticipation of unstated agencies that might “undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy.”
In a nation that advocates a clean separation of church and state, Bachmannn again and again seems to be running for the position of the Creator's representative on Earth. This, she doesn’t seem to recognize, goes back to ancient times in societies that became cruel, even barbaric, and failed. The young lady should probably dedicate herself more to the conventional legal attributes of the office, and leave the legislation of morality to the church goers and those entrenched in the pulpit.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - zingzing
i read somewhere that the study cited (for the claims on black families during slavery and under obama,) was completed in 2005 (ie, under bush II,) and the information contained therein only goes back to 1880 (ie, not under slavery). (here's a link to the study cited.)
2 - skponggol
Both Michele Bachmann and Barack Obama are a pair of political demagogue who are obsessed on exploiting inflammatory social issues to polarize and divide the nation and people for their personal gains.
While Obama loves to play the race card to bash the "racist" white people, Bachmann loves to play the gay card to bash the "deviant" gay people. Both are despicable in using these sort of emotional social to incite their respective liberal and conservative extremists into hysteric frenzy.
Michele Bachmann is Barack Obama, and Barack Obama is Michele Bachmann.
3 - Williamsholar
Is it just me or does this woman have eyes like Casey Anthony?
4 - Baronius
I don't like pledges in general, partly because of things like Zing points out. I haven't dug into the study, so I don't know if it's accurate or not, but I don't like the idea of taking a pledge of someone else's wording. I wouldn't hold failure to sign a pledge against a candidate if he provided good reasoning. That being said, on one reading I found this pledge to be something I would probably sign if I were running for office.
Good article, John.
5 - Tommy Mack
Signing the pledge confirms three important things about this member of congress. First, Representative Bachmann is not a serious candidate for the presidency. Second, Representative Bachmann takes poorly thought out political advice. Third, Representative Bachmann suffers from the delusion that she can defeat the incumbent president in a national election.
The only thing she has not done so far is to invent words on Twitter.
Tommy
6 - Glenn Contrarian
Williamsholar -
I thought the same thing a month or so ago. It is said that eyes are windows to the soul, and what I don't see in her eyes is any trace of true humility, the kind that forces oneself to remember that the more one knows, the more one realizes how much one has yet to learn. She is living proof that one can be very intelligent, yet quite ignorant, for she is scary smart in her own way - but she is also willfully ignorant of anything that calls into question her own beliefs.
That's what makes her dangerous.
7 - Glenn Contrarian
Tommy -
She's a serious candidate, all right, in the eyes of millions of low-information Republican voters.
8 - Arch Conservative
Barack Obama has not come out in support of gay marriage. Come to think of it neither has any other prominent national Democrat.........bunch of homophobes if you ask me!
9 - zingzing
they haven't signed any pledge saying they're against it... and obama was never going to get around to that in his first term. if he gets a second, maybe.
10 - Baronius
If I'd said 10 years ago that Democrats were lying about opposing gay marriage, or 15 years ago that they weren't going to settle for civil unions, I'd have been called a bigot. Now we're supposed to treat it as common knowledge that one of the parties is lying about its intentions?
11 - zingzing
eh? i can't figure out what that's supposed to mean.
12 - John Lake
I really feel a need to take exception to Glenn #6: She is living proof that one can be very intelligent, yet quite ignorant, for she is scary smart in her own way
“In her own way” spans a wide range; however, I find no reason to believe she has any particular intelligence, beyond having graduated Law School. Excepting that, she seems somewhat below Sarah, and a few others on any scale of innate braininess.
13 - Arch Conservative
Yeah Baronius I can't decipher your comment either.
Zing you claim that Obama will get around to supporting gay marriage in his second term? Why wait if he believes it is the right thing to do?
It's wouldn't be because he's a politician's politician and only does what is good for himself politically would it?
He said he was going to bring the troops home during his campaign yet they're still dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan. His announcement last month that he will begin withdrawing 10,000 troops later this year is an unbelievably transparent political ploy to garner support going into an election year. If it weren't that he would have done it already.
If you want to criticize Bachmann that's fine but at least find something to criticize that represents a difference between her and your messiah and his cohorts on the left. As of now Michelle Bachmann has done just as much as Barack Obama has to advance the cause of legalizing gay marriage.
14 - Arch Conservative
"and what I don't see in her eyes is any trace of true humility, the kind that forces oneself to remember that the more one knows, the more one realizes how much one has yet to learn"
But you see that in Obama's eyes?
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
[Edited]
15 - zingzing
"Zing you claim that Obama will get around to supporting gay marriage in his second term?"
i said "maybe." i'm not predicting anything, but it's a distinct possibility. he's toyed around with it for a while. and for the first time in history, a majority of the electorate would back him if he did. but then there's those swing states, where they would not back him if he did it now. yes, it is somewhat cowardly. but it's also smart. if he loses the election because he tries to push that one issue, he won't be able to push that one issue and whatever else he wants to push in a second term.
"Why wait if he believes it is the right thing to do?"
he's a politician. he can't go for reelection once he's in his second term.
"It's wouldn't be because he's a politician's politician and only does what is good for himself politically would it?"
yes.
"He said he was going to bring the troops home during his campaign yet they're still dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan. His announcement last month that he will begin withdrawing 10,000 troops later this year is an unbelievably transparent political ploy to garner support going into an election year. If it weren't that he would have done it already."
it may be a transparent ploy, but it's a step in the right direction. that's how things happen a lot of the time. you know this.
"If you want to criticize Bachmann that's fine but at least find something to criticize that represents a difference between her and your messiah and his cohorts on the left."
come on, archie. don't ask don't tell. telling the doj not to enforce doma. obama appointed more openly gay people to his admin than any other president in history. he opposed that thing in california. he issued an exec order to hospitals saying they must treat homosexual couples the same way they treat heterosexual couples. he extended the rights of gay federal workers. these are all steps in the right direction that are also somewhat politically safe. i know you know how politics work. but gimme a break... i can't believe you were expecting something different.
"As of now Michelle Bachmann has done just as much as Barack Obama has to advance the cause of legalizing gay marriage."
damn right. bigotry is a great advertisement against itself.
16 - Baronius
OK, let me try again.
The Democratic Party used to say that they opposed anti-sodomy laws. Conservatives said that the Democrats were taking the first steps toward radically transforming society. The conservatives were denounced as reactionaries. The Dems said that they just wanted to keep the government out of the bedroom.
Later, the Democratic Party used to say that they supported the rights of gay teachers to not be fired. Conservatives said that the Democrats were moving toward a denial of the difference between gay and straight. Nonsense, the Dems said, the conservatives are just being reactionary. We wouldn't try to change the culture; we're just trying to be fair to gay teachers.
Next (actually, I don't remember the chronology) was DADT. Conservatives called it a first step toward giving gays equal standing in the military. No, of course not, the Dems said.
Civil unions. A precursor to gay marriage, said the cons. Naw, it'll remove the need for gay marriage, said the Dems.
About a year ago, there was a gay rights conference in DC. The President was being criticized for not moving ahead with the gay agenda. Obama, who is on the record as opposing gay marriage, showed up and said - what? Did he say that he was sticking to his stated policies? No. Did he say that he'd changed his mind? No. What he said was, wait, and you'll like where I'm going.
If the President and fellow Democrats are espousing a position that they don't believe, and that they intend to break the moment they think they can get away with it without political cost, what kind of standard is that? It's a lie taking refuge in the fact that no one believes it. At some point, after the public has been lied to repeatedly, it's reasonable for them to doubt the Democrats' explanations.
17 - Baronius
Hey, it looks like Zing said the same thing I did: they're lying because they think they have to, but they'll do what they've been denouncing the moment they think they can.
18 - zingzing
i don't think the dems are "denouncing" gay marriage. that's a strong term, at any rate. times change, people change, hairstyles change. in #16, you describe it perfectly. little baby steps, chiseling away, leading the conservatives into accepting one "abomination" after another. it's taken some time, but you can see what direction this particular elephant is being led.
obama has said he was for it (in 1996, which is pretty remarkable, when campaigning in hyde park), and he was (rather mildly) against it (when he was in front of some evangelicals, and even then he pointed out how equal rights for gays didn't threaten him in any way). yes, he was trying to get elected both times, and said what needed to be said. since he has gained the presidency, has he not made large strides towards equal rights for homosexuals, as the tide has turned in that direction? yes, he has. like civil rights in the 60s, it's a slow crawl, but it's coming. unfortunately, throwing reluctant americans headlong into the future doesn't sit well with them.
"If the President and fellow Democrats are espousing a position that they don't believe, and that they intend to break the moment they think they can get away with it without political cost, what kind of standard is that?"
it's standard politics. you're aware of this, i assume.
i see what you're trying to do, but it comes off as either naive (or impatient, in the case of gay rights activists), or disingenuous. look at obama's actions concerning gay rights. what does that say to you? it's hard to trust a politician based on his words. politics is a game. they say one thing and do another. obama is saying what is politically acceptable when it comes to gay rights in an election year, but while you watch his lips flap, he's sneaking it in under your nose. the end is inevitable.
if you're trying to say politicians should always speak the exact truth, that's wonderful. but it's not that way and it never has been. i'm truly shocked at your shock. it's truly unbelievable. really. as in, i don't believe you.
19 - El Bicho
"espousing a position that they don't believe, and that they intend to break the moment they think they can get away with it without political cost, what kind of standard is that?"
A standard long held by politicians. It's rather surprising how much time some of you spend talking about politics yet no so little about how it actually works
20 - Glenn Contrarian
Arch #14 -
If you really understood what I meant, you would not have replied as you did.
Tell me, Arch - when was the last time that Michelle Bachmann or John Boehner or Sarah Palin publicly apologized for a mistake they made?
Or how about you? When was the last time you publicly and sincerely apologized for anything?
The point is, unless they - and you - are all perfect, they're too proud/insecure to apologize for doing anything wrong. I remember clearly when during a debate John Kerry asked George W. Bush what he thought he did wrong during his first term. Bush would not admit to doing anything wrong. I do not trust anyone who is unwilling to admit error in anything of significance. Obama's made a few errors along the way - he's human, remember - and for the most part he's been willing to own up to them. The same cannot be said for his predecessor or ANY of the Republican leadership presently in Congress.
Among today's conservatives, it's apparently seen as a weakness to apologize for anything significant. They do not understand the value (or even the meaning) of true humility. Neither, it seems, do you.
Pride goeth before a fall, Arch.
21 - Baronius
I'm not shocked. You can't be shocked by something that you've come to expect. But it does make it harder to believe anything that progressives say.
By the way, is that why progressives don't believe conservatives when we say that tax breaks help the economy, or that we care about children before and after they're born, or when we talk about peace through strength? Most of us really believe what we're saying. Also, is that why Democrats don't hold their leaders to any standards of truth? And, while we're at it, is that why you guys are way more comfortable latching onto conspiracy theories?
22 - zingzing
well, when you can spit up that amount of bs, maybe you can swallow it as well? besides, i believe it's pretty clear that, if they could, the dems would pass a gay marriage act. but they know they don't have the votes. because lots of republicans, no matter what they believe (and they really can't be such dumb redneck bigots they'd believe everything in that pledge), they can't say they'd pass it and expect to keep their seat this point.
23 - zingzing
hrm. 22 was for 19.
24 - zingzing
"But it does make it harder to believe anything that progressives say."
stop it, baronius. don't pretend you can't see the camel for the rich man in your eye, or whatever.
as per #22, the republicans are just as guilty of these kinds of tactics. but they have to prove their christian cred while going out and getting sucked off by rent boys. why do you trust them when they've been pulled ever closer towards gay rights over and over again? do they not say one thing then do another as well?
"And, while we're at it, is that why you guys are way more comfortable latching onto conspiracy theories?"
omfg, baronius. are you on drugs? you HAVE to be kidding. that is crazy.
25 - Glenn Contrarian
John Lake #12 -
I listen quite a bit to progressive talk radio, and without exception they disagree with you. Every single one I've heard holds Bachmann as being a smarter, more capable candidate than Sarah Palin.
Palin's mistakes are legion - witness how many times she's quit something halfway through. Bachmann, OTOH, has quit nothing halfway through and is trying her utmost to not make the same kind of silly claims that Palin did after she became a candidate for VP. She's learned (and continues to learn) from Sarah's mistakes.
No, Bachmann is quite intelligent - but in the same way that Iran's Ahmedinejad is quite intelligent. Both hold their religious beliefs far above any scientific or historical fact, but they're smart enough - at least in the manipulation of the media and their respective bases - that they're still on solid ground, politically speaking.
No, don't underestimate Bachmann. That would be a mistake. It would be a great tragedy not only for the nation but for the entire world if she were elected to President or VP. But she might well get there nevertheless, because she's every bit as smart and ruthless - and as willfully ignorant - as many of the religious tyrants we've seen over the centuries.