RECENT  POSTS:  » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out » But your subjective view of 'real' marriage is factually irrelevant, Ryan » Flip Benham (yes, their dad) reportedly protesting outside NC weddings » TV's Duggar family continues anti-LGBT activism » Caught ya: Far-right's latest marriage 'victim' edited website to make more solid legal case » Read: Wyoming to become our 32nd marriage equality state » GLAAD: Victory is what happens while you're busy making other plans » What fake victimization sounds like in Arizona » Federal judge strikes Arizona's discriminatory marriage ban; marriages should begin today! » NOM's latest desperation: Relying on hearsay James O'Keefe video to smear Democrat for 'secretly' not opposing equality  

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

08/12/2011

Maggie seeks *more* Bachmann-mouthed marriage opposition; Veruca Salt all like, 'Wow that's greedy'

by Jeremy Hooper

Many of us have many things to say about Michele Bachmann. But when it comes to marriage equality, most of us would agree that she's been pretty darn consistent in her opposition towards basic civil fairness. At a state senator, Bachmann sponsored and pushed for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, using some of the most overheated rhetoric in the debate at that time. On the national level, she has been staunch in her support to keep DOMA on the books and to make it even more discriminatory by way of a Federal Marriage Amendment. Oh, and I'm pretty sure I once saw her walk by a Georgetown area Zales jewelers and scoff at any wedding bands that were too close to their same-gender-specific analogs. Simply hardcore, the gentlewoman from Minnesota's opposition!

But not hardcore enough for one Maggie Gallagher. In reaction to last night's GOP presidential primary debate, the National Organization For Marriage chair writes the following:

On marriage in this debate, Bachmann was far weaker — not only weaker than Santorum but weaker than Romney as well. She stated her position clearly but did not make an argument for it: “I support the federal marriage amendment; as president, I will not nominate activist judges who legislate from the bench. In Minnesota, I was the chief author of the constitutional amendment. I have an unblemished record when it comes to this issue of man-woman marriage.”

Unblemished, maybe, but also unexplained.

[SOURCE: National Review Online]

Really? Bachman''s marriage views are some sort of question mark? Seriously? The same person who eagerly signed the National Organization For Marriage's "protect marriage" pledge, vowing to do Screen Shot 2011-08-12 At 4.04.15 Pmany and everything within her theoretical executive power to stop peaceful equality for same-sex couples? The same person who accused colleagues who didn't vote for her biased marriage amendment of acting like soldiers whose complacency led to the Pearl Harbor tragedy? The same Bachmann who pretty much built her national profile on the back of anti-LGBT views, with comments like the one where she called the "sexual dysfunction" of gayness "part of Satan, I think," the one where she suggested that same-sex marriage legalizes "sexual anarchy," or the instance when she contributed this nugget: “If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement" (to name but a few)? The same person who not only expressed support for state and federal bans in last night's debate, but who also threw out an "activist judges" charge as an obvious dog whistle to "culture war" voters? This is the candidate whose opposition to gay people's open bars and chicken dances could use just a tad more elucidation? Really?

Interesting, Maggie. What next: Demanding Newt Gingrich reassure conservatives that he didn't vote for Bill Clinton in '96?

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