RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

04/12/2011

Audio: Bachmann in Iowa: 'There's a war going on in our nation against marriage'

by Jeremy Hooper

- (0:04 - 0:28) Regarding DOMA: President Obama's decision to not defend was not some willy nilly thing, but rather a fully fleshed out legal opinion from the DOJ and AG Holder. Also, President Clinton now opposes this law that he was boxed into signing (*not to excuse the 42nd president's misguided signature, but there were reasons, wrong-headed or actual, behind his mid-'90s pen stroke that went beyond personal opinion). And increasingly, courts are also finding the flawed law discriminatory. Thus the reason for the Obama administration's change of stance.

- (0:29) Actually, current polling shows the American people opposed to DOMA. These polls are going one way, decidedly. Undeniably.

- (1:16 - 2:14) But wait -- it's out-of-line for an administration to flesh out the sound reasons why a certain law is unconstitutional, yet totally okay for an angry group to gather out-of-state money and energy in order to vindictively cast out three judges solely because of faith-based objections to one of their opinions? And smart to suggest that the judiciary's role here should be to keep majority tyranny less in check check? Interesting logic, that.

- (2:28 - 3:10) Yea? We're gonna talk about marriage history? Because something tells us that a female presidential candidate might not want to go back to the days where her choices for leaving the stone oven were limited, but less her options for actually leaving the dwelling for the purposes of presidential pursuit!

- (3:34 - 3:45) Yes, we're seeing same-sex couples earn the freedom to marry for the first time. Awesome, aint it? How blessed we are to live at such a time!

- (3:49) A "war going on"? Really? A war? Seriously, that's what we're still going with? A full-out war? In this world with actual, highly costly wars, you conservatives don't see anything problematic about using that hyperbole? And using it on an issue that is widely supported by younger generations (i.e. incoming voters)?


Oy. Go listen to Rep. Michelle Bachmann's marriage spiel, delivered last night in Iowa:

*FULL AUDIO: Congresswoman Michele Bachmann - April 11, 2011, Pella, Iowa [Family Leader]

***

*REMINDER: Rep. Bachmann was speaking in front of The Family Leader, a group that is insistent on positioning gays as a health risk on par with (or worse than) smoking.

*RELATED: ThinkProgress Leaves Bachmann Speechless: Doesn’t ‘Have An Answer’ On Whether Homosexuality Is A Public Health Hazard [TP]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails