Bachmann Pledges To Protect Marriage, Because What Else Is She Going To Do

This week, presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann became the first and thus far (and hopefully) only candidate to sign The Marriage Vow, a pledge created by THE FAMiLY LEADER, a moral majority type group that in addition to wanting to protect the sanctity of marriage, seems to think having a lower case "i" in their name will make them as popular as Apple products.

To their credit, the group's pledge does not solely focus on "The Gays" as the reason marriage's sanctity is in trouble. It groups them with lots of other issues, such as high divorce rates, infidelity among heterosexual couples, and good ole pornography. So, you know, points for that.

Then you start actually reading the pledge. In addition to a seemingly pro-slavery sentiment, which I'll let this short post cover, it lists a number of things the candidate (Bachmann) "vows" to do and uphold. And this is where it gets fun.

In addition to things you would expect (defending and advocating the Defense of Marriage Act, opposing any change to the definition of the Institute of Marriage), there are a lot of other things that come out of left field, such as opposing Sharia Law. No joke, that is really in there. Now, Sharia Law is extremely oppressive, especially towards women, and is something I would never wish to be instated. But it's also one of those things we really don't have to worry about living in the USA. Similar to how we don't really bother worrying about lion attacks, Sharia Law is pretty much outside of what we encounter on a day to day basis. It's also funny that this vow makes a point to reject the totalitarianism of Sharia Law, while SETTING OUT TO TELL YOU WHO YOU CAN AND CAN'T MARRY.

This hypocrisy is driven home even more by the last "vow," which invokes "Fierce defense of First Amendment's rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech." Obviously, this means they are free to say they think marriage is between a man and a woman. It also means people have the freedom to say it can also be between a man and a man or a women and a women. Religious Liberty does not mean we have to protect one specific view, it means we accept ALL views, including ones we may not like, assuming they do not interfere with the rights of others. This is why people like THE FAMiLY LEADER infuriate me. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry does NOTHING to curb their freedoms. They can still marry heterosexuality and can even go on believing it's wrong if they want. But to take their side ACTIVELY PREVENTS other people from practicing their rights. People like Bachmann may be offended that The Gays can marry and are capable of having human emotions, but they lose no rights over the issue.

And then there is the childbearing vow, which states that "robust childbearing and reproduction is benificial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security." By "robust" I assume they mean "the fucking Duggar family." And I have a problem with this, because 1) It carries on the oppressive mentality that sex can ONLY be for making babies, so if you want sex you need to have lots of kids and 2) It is NOT strictly beneficial. We are quickly becoming an over-populated country and world. Job growth is struggling to keep up with population increase, and we are draining more resources faster to provide for everyone. That isn't to say we should stop having kids, but people like Bachmann take it too far in the other direction. Hell, in the first Republican Primary debate they were wearing how many kids they had as a badge of honor, as if that was some sort of qualification for holding office.

So what can we take away from this? Mostly, that Bachman is hitching her wagon to the furthest right-thinking segment of the population. This will surely help somewhat in the primary with Tea Party voters, but will (hopefully) alienate her in a general election. While she and THE FAMiLY LEADERS (seriously, why is that "i" lower case?) claim to represent the "christian majority" in this country, I doubt this is the case. For all my problems with religion, most of the people I know who are religious shake their head at crap like this. I take solace in the fact that none of the other potential candidate, and not even not-really-running-but-loves-the-attention-Sarah Palin, have signed this pledge (yet anyway). I choose to be somewhat optimistic and believe the general public is NOT completely insane and will see what absolute bullshit this pledge is. But I've been wrong before.