RECENT  POSTS:  » Scott Lively equates accurately noting his public record with inciting murder » Audio: Mark Regnerus doesn't think marriage equality has 'a lot of gas left' » Friday: NOM president shares the bill with 'ex-gay' activists » Today in 'um, yeah, obviously': Stunt marriages not confined to opposite-sex partnerships » Video: Brian Brown's fellow panelist gives insight into Moscow panel's extreme views on homosexuality, marriage » Video: TN man condemns gays with Leviticus billboards; oddly allows local Red Lobsters to remain open » Video: 'Ex-gay' speaker at upcoming ERLC summit equates talking to gay people with talking to cancer patients » GLAAD: Mainstream media is catching on to NOM's broader agenda » FRC's Values Voter Summit puts anti-gay bakers on a marriage panel; so we won, basically » GOP front group NOM raising money for a GOP US Senate  

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

07/18/2011

'Absolutely not against the gays' (*just against Satan, of which she claims gaynesss is part)

by Jeremy Hooper

In the LGBT rights conversation, these are the kinds of comments that really get to me:

[The Bachmanns] are absolutely not against the gays,” said one close friend, JoAnne Hood, who also attends Eagle Brook. “They are just not for marriage.”
[SOURCE: NYT]

Gets to me, because it's so empirically untrue. Perhaps it's personally true. Personally, the Bachmanns might be throwing jubilant coming out parties for their gay friends every time a "Glee" episode airs, which may be the Bachmann actions that Hood (a former neighbor) knows. But publicly and politically (i.e. what matters here), the Bachmann canon goes WELL beyond marriage and right into the heart of anti-gaydom.

As part of her political efforts, Michele Bachmann has called the "sexual dysfunction" of gayness "part of Satan, I think." She also once accused MN state senators who didn't vote for her marriage amendment of acting like soldiers whose complacency led to the Pearl Harbor tragedy. As an advocate for the scientifically-repudiated idea that gays can and should "change", Bachmann provided a blurb for "ex-gay" Janet Boyne's book -- one where she framed Boynes' "change" as freedom "from the bondage of sin." And she's contributed a host of other hostile comments that cut right into the cores of gay people's beings, from claiming that same-sex marriage legalizes "sexual anarchy" to declaring that “If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement." If this is not an example of a public figure acting "against the gays," then seriously -- what is?!

So back to the NYT quote: Why even include it in a report on the Congresswoman? It is cover. It is filler. It is unsupported by the body of fact -- a lack of support that is in no way strengthened by a former neighbor's good affections.

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