"Ex-Gays" | 2012 Election | Michelle Bachmann | News

Michele Bachmann Signs Anti-Gay Pledge That Claims Homosexuality Is A Choice


Well, that was fast.

Iowa conservatives yesterday asked Republican presidential candidates to sign a pledge that opposes marriage equality, Sharia law and bans pornography. None of those stipulations are that controversial -- not for conservatives, at least.

The document, however, also contends that homosexuality is a choice, rather than a biological trait. I honestly thought, or at least hoped, candidates would be hesitant to back such an inflammatory declaration.

Apparently I was being overly optimistic, because Michele Bachmann, who's married to an "ex-gay" counselor, has already given the pledge her John Hancock.

I sincerely hope that the mainstream media takes her to task on this one, because the "choice" debate is one of the most dangerous and incendiary weapons in the right-wing arsenal, and can be used to justify all sorts of discriminatory measures. If taken to the extreme, it could very well lead to the erection of "reeducation camps," just like the ones Marcus Bachmann runs.

Perhaps that's what Bachmann wants?

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Sharia law is the boogeyman of the 21st Century. It does not exist in the United States and we under no threat of it. It's even more vaperous than the threat of Communism was in the 1950s. Yet these people spend a great amount of time battling against it.

    Posted by: Gregoire | Jul 8, 2011 11:26:18 AM

  2. Ms Bachmann, would you and your "queen" please crawl back to the hole you climbed out of? I can't imagine any gay person has harmed you in any way leading to your hatred of all gay and lesbian persons. You should be ashamed of the way you've mistreated Ms LaFave, your stepsister; your actions are despicable. Does your God really tell you to treat people this way? The God that I know teaches love, not hatred!

    Posted by: MichaelD1026 | Jul 8, 2011 11:37:33 AM

  3. Actually the best thing that could happen for the country is for her to get the repub nomination.

    She will freak the independent minded middle of the road out and ensure an obama victory.

    In fact, with unemployment numbers like those released today, it may be obama's only hope.

    I think we may be looking at president romney. I know a lot of you will be so happy since you hate obama so much!

    Posted by: dms | Jul 8, 2011 11:40:08 AM

  4. @ Ernie and Gregoire...Check some local legislation over the past couple years. There are a few cities that have actually had to have votes on whether Sharia Law was going to be recognized. There are Extremist Muslim groups that are saying that under freedom of religion, they have a right to exercise their laws and believe me, if it ever gets contested, I am sure there are 1000+ ACLU attorneys that will take up the case.

    I strongly encourage all of us to stick with the ISSUES and not the personal attacks. Even if candidates make personal attacks. If BOTH sides stick to the ISSUES at hand, things will go a lot smoother for this country. We don't choose to be gay, but some in our community choose to act very childish in their name calling and snarky comments. That doesn't help us look like "equals."

    Posted by: BC | Jul 8, 2011 11:43:49 AM

  5. Can't wait for the crazy train to derail.

    Posted by: jakeinlove | Jul 8, 2011 11:47:16 AM

  6. I'm really sorry, but I find the author's comment here STUPID. People need to know that homosexuals should not be taken to reeducation camps not because they can't be "corrected", but because there's nothing wrong with being gay. Homosexuality is not something society should tolerate just because nothing can be done about it.

    Posted by: borut | Jul 8, 2011 11:48:37 AM

  7. I'm really sorry, but I find the author's comment here STUPID. People need to know that homosexuals should not be sent to reeducation camps not because they can't be reeducated, but because there's nothing wrong with being gay. Homosexuality is not something society should tolerate just because nothing can be done about it.

    Posted by: borut | Jul 8, 2011 11:53:37 AM

  8. If you want this pledge to destroy a candidate, don't focus on the gay aspect. Let all those Red State straight men know that the candidate has pledged TO TAKE AWAY THEIR PORN! They may say AMEN to such a thing in church...but porn, like, voting is usually done with the curtains closed.

    Posted by: David | Jul 8, 2011 12:01:25 PM

  9. I'm really sorry, but I find the author's comment here STUPID. People need to know that homosexuals should not be sent to reeducation camps not because they can't be reeducated, but because there's nothing wrong with being gay. Homosexuality is not something society should tolerate just because nothing can be done about it.

    Posted by: borut | Jul 8, 2011 12:03:52 PM

  10. Bachmann should ask herself if stupidity is a choice..I think NOT, but she would a great poster person for the STOP STUPIDITY ADVOCATES campaign.
    To think that in the 21st Century, we still have idiots, such as her, who the conservative public actually listens and will cast their vote in her favor...HOW SAD!
    OMG...that "QUEER" husband..does anyone think she may be a lesbian! .

    Posted by: Lonewillow | Jul 8, 2011 12:09:05 PM

  11. @Adam and Ralph Good posts. The truth is that there IS a degree of choice for most people--Almost every "gay" man I know of has had sex with a woman at least once.....and a large minority, at least, of "straight" men have at least gotten a blow job from another guy.

    The core of the problem here is that instead of encouraging the sexual liberation of all people so that they can engage in whatever combination of sexual acts with whatever partners suits them in whatever ratio is appropriate for them--in other words, encouraging people to behave naturally--we are letting these people set the terms of the debate.

    Many of us try to "defend" ourselves by saying we were "born gay" (when we were not) and try to pretend that sexuality is black and white (i.e. that everyone is either "straight" or "gay" and that there is no in between)......and that is a losing battle--by accepting their terms for the debate, you are implicitly agreeing that there is something wrong with homosexuality (i.e. "if I could choose not to be attracted to other men, I would choose not to")

    These old paradigms are so tired, but instead of creating new paradigms, so many of us continue to play the old game--I don't know whether that is due to lack of confidence or lack of intellect or something else, but it is not productive....

    Posted by: Rick | Jul 8, 2011 12:18:05 PM

  12. A ban on porn? LOL
    That is NOT a way to win election in the Red States.

    Posted by: Ben | Jul 8, 2011 12:22:46 PM

  13. BC, America is more likely to face an alien attack than it is a takeover by Sharia law. Just because something exist somewhere in the world doesn't mean it's an immediate threat.

    Posted by: Gregoire | Jul 8, 2011 12:53:42 PM

  14. How do you know we aren't born gay, Rick?

    Posted by: nikko | Jul 8, 2011 12:54:43 PM

  15. Take a good look at that picture. Reminds me of the last scene of Rosemary's Baby. E-vil.

    Posted by: JH | Jul 8, 2011 12:58:15 PM

  16. Connecting Sharia law (bad) and homosexuality (bad) as these morons do is about as logical as connecting homosexuality with Hitler and Fascism: in other words, not logical at all.

    It's all about magical thinking and fear-mongering, as Ernie and Gregoire correctly point out.

    Remember the red scare & McCarthy? Remember who actually lost their jobs when they went hunting for a red under every bed? Hint: it wasn't pinkos.

    Oddly, some gay people seem not to understand this at all, but then, that's the way fear-mongering works. You're not supposed to "get it."

    Posted by: KevinVT | Jul 8, 2011 12:58:32 PM

  17. There's an odd parallel between belief in biblical creationism and homosexuality being a choice. In both cases, people have made a religious/political decision to ignore reams of scientific data and the evidence of their own eyes, study after study, and DECIDED to insist on something that's really quite silly. If you look closely at the wording of these things and their statements about it, it's clear that it's a position they've taken, a cynical devil's advocate stance on settled and widely accepted science taken only for political purposes.

    And if you want to talk about "choice," let's look at religion. People change religions EVERY day, switching faiths or dropping them altogether. Their claim that gays "recruit" is almost comical in the face of the missionaries, "witnessing," and door-to-door proselytizers religions send out to gather converts, people willing to CHOOSE their religion. If religion wasn't a choice then none of those things would be necessary. And there ARE religions which have reexamined scripture and come to different conclusions about gays and lesbians and these homophobic "Christian" politicos could FAR more easily choose to switch to one of them than a gay person could choose to ignore their innate sexuality, Marcus Bachmann's obvious example aside.

    So who is conning who here?

    Posted by: Codswallop | Jul 8, 2011 1:00:25 PM

  18. @NIKKO What I know is that there is not a shred of evidence to support the idea that there is a genetic "cause" of sexual orientation. What I also know is that the current consensus in the behavioral sciences is that one's sexual orientation appears to take shape between birth and the age of 3-4, but that that process is not well-understood, nor is the importance of different factors. What I futher know is that, according to Kinsey's reseach and that of sexologists that have come after, the idea that most people are either exclusively homosexual or exclusively heterosexual is not accurate--most have a preference for one or the other, but in very few people is that preference exclusive.

    Those are the facts. And I base my views on facts, not on what is politically expedient.

    But I will say this--you had better hope that science does NOT discover a genetic "cause" of homosexuality, because most heterosexual parents, preferring that their children be like them, would undoubtedly use the tools of modern science to ensure that they did not bring any gay children into the world--and the consequence of that would be that we would go extinct.

    Be careful what you wish for--you just might get it some day......

    Posted by: Rick | Jul 8, 2011 1:02:28 PM

  19. Banning "Sharia law"? The Bachmanns have more in common with Sharia law than they do the U.S. Constitution.

    Posted by: Mark | Jul 8, 2011 1:05:01 PM

  20. The problem, BC, is that you're missing the issue at hand. Despite your claims, there is no threat from Sharia law in the US. None. You, and your right-wing compadres, are inventing it. It is method to stir up anti-Muslim sentiment in a way they believe people will buy into because no one wants Sharia law in the US.

    Likewise, they are trying to make homosexuality a threat (it's a choice, your children could be recruited to it and Sharia law in one fell swoop--menace, menace!), black people a threat, sex a threat, in ways that are false. It's pure propaganda that, as others have pointed out, harkens back to the McCarthy era.

    When I say that those who fall for it are stupid, I'm not saying it merely to be snarky or insulting; I'm saying it because I believe people who fall for obvious right-wing fascist propaganda are stupid to do so.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jul 8, 2011 1:12:24 PM

  21. She really has a bad case of "crazy eyes".

    They are a scandal just waiting to happen. However, it won't unless they really gain traction raising money, which they aren't right now.

    The fear with Sharia law (way overblown here in the US) is not based on the actions of Muslim pressure groups (practically non-existent here in the US), but court precedent. That is, some judge will decide that a case must be decided using Sharia law (there are various forms of binding arbitration that you might think would lead to this happening, but it's very unlikely). As a practical matter, you could pass a law banning the use of Sharia law by name in cases of binding arbitration, but the litigants will invariably just call it something else, so you really can't ban it in practice. Also, too many aspects of Sharia law are outside of arbitration issues (religious observance, criminal statutes, forms of government, etc) to use it as a broad category.

    Posted by: anon | Jul 8, 2011 1:20:53 PM

  22. @Rick: There is more evidence to suggest genetics than to suggest that happens between the ages of 3 and 4. And it's simply not true that the latter is the "consensus" of behavioral sciences either (if fact, can you show us these studies and also further studies claiming that behavior scientists as a whole believe this?)

    I have never slept with a woman or had any real attraction to a woman, so don't paint me with that Kinsey brushstroke either. Saying I'm gay and I was born this way doesn't mean I'm saying, "I can't change it and wish I were straight!" I'm very happy to be gay.

    I'm also not so concerned with the "Twilight of the Golds" scenario of parents finding out about their kids sexual orientation in the womb and trying to correct it. It's not going to come done to one single gene and it would be incredibly hard to try to change it genetically. Plus, by the time we could do such a time, I think doing it will be just as amoral and illegal as changing someone's race.

    Posted by: Jollysocks | Jul 8, 2011 1:37:33 PM

  23. @Ernie
    Yes, the people who fall for this stuff are pretty stupid. The scary part is that there's an awful lot of them

    Posted by: Pira | Jul 8, 2011 1:46:51 PM

  24. @ Ernie - so you are saying that not one person living in America wants Sharia law? Not ONE? Of course it is not a wide spread issue, but neither was gay at one point.

    AND, Ernie (since you always seem so quick to attack me), my whole point was that gay and Sharia were not even comparable. I DISAGREED that these are conserative issues. I also said I am no fan of Bachmann, because if she got the nomination, Obama will win. So theoretically, you all here should be PRO BACHMANN because she has zero chance of beating Obama.

    ADDITIONALLY - let's look at this as well. People are INFINITELY more concerned with the economy and unemployment right now than they are with gay issues. We (gays) need to be as well. Our ability to have a voice comes from us being active, productive members of society LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. As the economy drops, so does our influence (as does that of all minority groups). When we have 9.2% unemployment even our straight allies are going to be focused on their family's financial safety and security.

    Posted by: BC | Jul 8, 2011 2:06:14 PM

  25. Adam, your internalized homophobia slip is showing.

    Posted by: Your Mom | Jul 8, 2011 2:18:42 PM

  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «NYC Mayor Bloomberg To Preside Over Staffers' Gay Marriage« «