RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Paul Harris writes: "In 2004, she called being gay 'part of Satan.' In the same year, she also compared it to slavery, saying: 'If you're involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it's bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement.' She's said teaching young children about gay people is akin to child abuse and has claimed that gays have a 'sexual dysfunction.'"

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann speaks during the first 2012 Republican presidential candidates' debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, 06/13/11. (photo: Getty Images)
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann speaks during the first 2012 Republican presidential candidates' debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, 06/13/11. (photo: Getty Images)



Michele Bachmann: Homophobe-in-Chief?

By Paul Harris, Guardian UK

27 June 11

 

As she moves from Tea Party fringe to Republican presidential contender, her horrible anti-gay record deserves exposure.

iven the explosive excitement surrounding congresswoman Michele Bachmann's White House bid, it was perhaps no surprise that organisers of a Minneapolis conservative bloggers' conference, Right Online, over the weekend chose to introduce her with the infuriatingly catchy Katy Perry song "Firework."

Bachmann is now a real rock star of the hardcore Republican right and the Tea Party faithful. But the song choice showed a profound misunderstanding of popular culture. For Firework - whatever one thinks of its musical merits - is a gay anthem. The video Perry filmed to go with it preaches a message of universal tolerance and includes a young man coming to happy terms with his sexuality and kissing another man. Which, to put it mildly, is ironic for Bachmann and her legion of supporters.

For Bachmann is surely one of the most anti-gay mainstream candidates to run for the White House in recent years. A glance at Bachmann's record on gay issues shows a good part of her political philosophy and personal beliefs are based on preaching prejudice against a vulnerable minority of the American people. (One member of that community made her protest by "glitter-bombing" Bachmann as she left Right Online.) America has come a long way since segregationist George Wallace first ran for president in 1964. But swap blacks for gays in some Bachmann comments and it becomes clear that some politicians have come less far than others.

Bachmann has spearheaded fights to get a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Minnesota. That, in itself, is not too unusual. But what is unusual is the fervency of Bachmann's anti-gay agenda. Her stance does not seem cynical politicking to her base. It seems rooted in her core beliefs and evangelical religious outlook. Bachmann, after all, once hid behind some bushes to keep an eye on a gay rally in St Paul, Minnesota. In another notorious incident, when two lesbians once approached Bachmann in a bathroom to talk about her anti-gay opinions, the congresswoman claimed she was being kidnapped and fled to police to try and press charges (the authorities took a dim view of the complaint and declined to pursue the matter). In 2004, she called being gay "part of Satan." In the same year, she also compared it to slavery, saying:

"If you're involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it's bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement."

She's said teaching young children about gay people is akin to child abuse and has claimed that gays have a "sexual dysfunction." She believes gays specifically target children and has said repeatedly that she believes America is on a path that will eventually see young people forced to "try" being gay.

Of course, for Bachmann, this is close to home. Her husband Marcus Bachmann - who is a major influence in his wife's political career and beliefs - runs a Christian counseling business in Minnesota. He has referred to gays as "barbarians":

"We have to understand that barbarians need to be educated, need to be disciplined. And just because someone thinks (they're gay) or feels it doesn't mean we need to go down that road. That's what is called the sinful nature."

Marcus Bachmann has denied that he runs courses seeking to "cure" people of their homosexuality. But in 2005, he spoke at a conference and, according to a gay activist present, ended his presentation with testimony from three people who claimed to have been "cured" of their gayness and were now straight. His speech was called "The Truth About the Homosexual Agenda."

But what is really scary about Bachmann's anti-gay beliefs are how they have run roughshod over her own family life. Some high-profile conservatives, such as former Vice President Dick Cheney, have softened their stances or embraced gay rights because they have out and proud members of their own family. Just this week, New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser shed her normally strident conservatism to write a moving tribute to the lesbian marriage of a favourite niece. But Bachmann stays rigid even when her own family members are gay.

Bachmann's step-sister, Helen LeFave, is a lesbian. The two were close as they grew up together in their teens. Not surprisingly Bachmann's anti-gay comments have not gone down well with her, or several other relatives. They have written letters to newspapers opposing Bachmann's stance or appeared at political hearings on attempts to ban gay marriage. Yet, even in the face of having gay relatives in her own family, Bachmann is unwavering. No doubt, that is what many of her fans love about her.

She is a real conviction politician in an era where most presidential aspirants love their focus groups first and foremost. But what a shame one of Bachmann's core convictions is naked prejudice against some of her fellow citizens and a wish to deny them the basic rights afforded to everyone else.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+58 # Annuit Coeptus 2011-06-28 10:29
The simple answer is- don't cover her or talk about her. She's a profound embarrassment to her party and her country. If she want s to run for president, fine, let her do it in Waterloo, IA.
 
 
+24 # granny 2011-06-28 15:03
Agreed! The media give Bachmann and Palin more airtime than they deserve. But pack journalism is what seems easiest and the pro-tea party pack is loved by anyone with a Koch habit.
 
 
+2 # bobzaguy 2011-06-30 09:54
Quoting granny:
Agreed! The media give Bachmann and Palin more airtime than they deserve. But pack journalism is what seems easiest and the pro-tea party pack is loved by anyone with a Koch habit.


Granny, that is the funniest and best! "…loved by anyone with a Koch habit." Of course gays do have a c**k habit…such marvelous use of words to knock on the GOPTea party doors!
 
 
-2 # Beth Sager 2011-07-02 19:54
When Palin and McCain lost in 2008, I was happy, not only for the obvious reasons, but also, because I thought I would not ever have to hear that grating, irritating voice again. Little did I know!
 
 
+51 # fredboy 2011-06-28 10:29
Eisenhower and Lincoln must be spinning in their graves.
 
 
+31 # BradFromSalem 2011-06-28 11:29
Goldwater too
 
 
-30 # Jimmy Shirley 2011-06-28 21:58
lincoln was a montrous terrorist. He single-handedly destroyed the United States the Founders established.
 
 
+8 # ericlipps 2011-06-29 07:33
Quoting Jimmy Shirley:
lincoln was a monstrous terrorist. He single-handedly destroyed the United States the Founders established.


Rubbish. It was the Confederate traitors (and yes, that's what they were: read the Constitution's definition of treason) who tried to destroy the United States.

Instead of pissing and moaning about mean old Abe, Confederate apologists should be thankful people like Jeff Davis, Robert E. Lee and so on weren't shot or hanged.
 
 
-14 # Jimmy Shirley 2011-06-29 08:45
Then you dont know your American history nor do you understand it. The CSA did NOT try to destroy the USA, it simply wanted to withdraw from it. In 1789, the USA existed with 13 States. By 1861, it had grown to 33 States. If the lincoln regime had simply let the first 7 seceded States go, that would have left 26 States and the USA still functioning as before.
And as far as treason goes, that is impossible. The CSA was an independent nation. That is like calling the Mexicans traitors because they waged war on the USA in 1846. Just because the USA did not recognise the CSA, in violation of their longstanding policy of recognising new nations in the western hemisphere, the Monroe Doctrine, does not make it any less untrue.
And, had the CSA won the war they would have been more than justified in stringing up the whole federal high command, beginning with that American Stalin, lincoln.
 
 
0 # in deo veritas 2011-06-29 09:12
Lincoln was no terrorist. He was a puppet of Wall Street then just like our leaders today. Slavery existed in the North too. Just study the working conditions in the factories-diffe rent but the same mantra-exploit the workers. The Wall-streeters couldn't allow the South to control the Mississippi and most important seaports,especi ally New Orleans. Cotton was our most lucrative export and the revenue loss would have been disastrous. This war like all others was really about money. The slaves were simply a means to an end.
 
 
+5 # in deo veritas 2011-06-29 09:15
The war made no one free. It simply turned the country over to the tycoons so they could use their wartime profits to become even richer. Does this sound contemporary and familiar? You betcha!
 
 
+67 # Pickwicky 2011-06-28 10:39
Clearly, a vote for Bachmann is a vote for a police state.
 
 
+15 # Foxtrottango 2011-06-28 14:33
Or for the anti-Christ, and a woman of all thing! It could be she is hiding something...lik e she is a lesbian, herself. After all, look at all those Republican politicians who were revealed as be homosexuals and her family members as well.
 
 
+1 # Beth Sager 2011-07-03 16:47
I am always suspicious of anyone running on "family values" without having any other credible agenda. A senator here in TN was elected even tho he had past arrest, a standoff with his wife, holding a gun in his mouth and threatening to kill himself. He had a history of abusing his first wife, but still was elected on "family values."
 
 
+61 # Barbara K 2011-06-28 10:52
This Tbagger is not fit to step into the White House, much less occupy it. She hasn't the intelligence we NEED to run this country, and is truly a hatemonger. If a person cannot stand for ALL Americans, that person does not deserve to be President of all Americans. She has a mindset that no truth is needed in anything that spews from her mouth.
 
 
+66 # JustJim 2011-06-28 11:51
While I agree with your comment, George W Bush, and Ronald Regan proved that Intelligence is not a requirement for holding the office of President. Additionally, Al Gore, and John Kerry have probably demonstrated that intelligence may actually work against you in an election campaign.
 
 
-23 # Jimmy Shirley 2011-06-28 22:00
Barry O'Bama does not stand for ALL Americans. Then does he deserve to be President/
 
 
+62 # camus11 2011-06-28 10:54
It is amusing that she is a right wing extremist who calls others "unamerican" or the equivalent, when she herself is as "unamerican" as the goose-step. Come to think of it, so is the majority of today's GOP. Pathetic. And dangerous.
 
 
-21 # Jimmy Shirley 2011-06-29 08:20
Is that any more dangerous than the left wing extremists? And are all left wing extremists goose-stepping together? Look at what Barry and his agenda has done to this country. Pathetic and dangerous.
 
 
+15 # camus11 2011-06-29 09:31
if only we had some real "left wingers" in power! If you think O is a leftist, you are as delusional and reactionary as Bachmann and the rest of the gop'ers!
 
 
+1 # mahoganyjones 2011-07-01 23:36
i assume you refer to barry goldwater....
 
 
+44 # BradFromSalem 2011-06-28 11:28
She can dislike Gay people all she wants. Or perhaps she 'doth protest too much'. Myabe it si hubby who is covering his home sexual tendencies by calling gays barbarians. Could be Michelle and Marcus are a Match Made in heaven and the are both covering up.

What is important is when she puts it into the public sphere. Clearly, she defines homo sexuality in Religious terms. As was asked of Mr. Cain the question needs to be put to her. Would she nominate a candidate for Federal job that was gay? What if someone came out after getting the job, would they be dismissed?

And what does she suggest we do with hordes of barbaric gays already openly, some even married, in our midst.

There shall be no religious test for office, praphrasing the U.S. Constitution. I think her religious test requirement makes HER unqualified to be POTUS.
 
 
+57 # cruzvaz 2011-06-28 11:42
Now here is a true Ugly American.
 
 
+33 # SouthBrun 2011-06-28 12:24
It is people like her that give straights a bad name. She is a charter member of the gang that couldn't lie straight.
 
 
+20 # Lurch 2011-06-28 13:13
Quoting SouthBrun:
It is people like her that give straights a bad name. She is a charter member of the gang that couldn't lie straight.


Excellent pun! Given the rumors spread about Marcus' sexuality, Michele proves one can be clean-shaven and still a beard!
 
 
+36 # BishopAndrew 2011-06-28 12:52
She feeds the beast called hate and she does it in the name of "Christianity" which is the oldest ploy of evil and sadly a very effective one. Ignore her, well yes and no, becuase she does tragically attract followers and so she needs her hate exposed for what it is but do so as you would any bigot.
 
 
+28 # TomDegan 2011-06-28 13:16
The very fact that poor old Mitt is neck-and-neck with Bachmann in the opinion polls tells me that there is some semblance of sanity left in that disgusting party. Romney, although decidedly conservative in the classic definition of that word, is fairly moderate when compared to every nominee that the GOP has puked onto the national stage for the last three decades. True, Mitt has been saying a whole lot of really stupid things lately, but that is the only way to get the Republican nomination these days. It's quite funny watching him run away from a background which is, after all is said and done, conservative in almost every respect.

I can't offer for you a more perfect example of the extremism with which "the party of Abraham Lincoln" has fallen victim to than the fact that someone with the comparable gravitas of Romney is in serious competition with a fool like Bachmann.

Strange days indeed.

Will the nomination ultimately be hers? One can only hope. As screamingly twisted and hilarious as her campaign may be during the primary season, during the general election it would be a guaranteed laugh riot. I can just picture her debating Barack Obama. Oh, please, fate!

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
 
 
-13 # Jimmy Shirley 2011-06-29 08:25
The party of lincoln, as you call it, always was and always has been an extremist party. Because of him/them, more than 670,000 Americans died in a needless conflict, not to mention the more than 1,000,000 wounded and maimed. To say nothing of the legacy of hate and horror directed to the poor Negro. They had blood dripping from them from the getgo.
The party of lincoln?? What a laughable metaphor!
 
 
+13 # Terre 2011-06-29 08:57
I suggest you go back to school and learn a little history and take b@chman with you. She could use a refresher course or two as well.
 
 
-4 # Jimmy Shirley 2011-06-30 09:41
I stand by what I posted. Unless you can prove my assertion incorrect, mayhaps it be ye who aughten to go back to school and learn American history.
 
 
+12 # Peacedragon 2011-06-28 13:29
Wierd hypothetical: If Bachman were nominated would Kansas break it's long record as a red state?
 
 
+23 # tuandon 2011-06-28 13:37
The woman is totally from another planet, and her anti-gay sentiments are just one more manifestation of her warped, hate-filled, completely-out- of-touch personality. There are hundreds of reasons she is unfit to be president (of ANYTHING!), and this is just one more.
 
 
+24 # fhunter 2011-06-28 13:45
Just wait for your EXPLOSIVE EXCITEMENT, when Ms. Bachmann will HEAR Gods voice again telling her to drop some nukes on the BARBARIAN gays, muslims and liberals. Of course, she never heard God telling her to run for President. She is a lunatic, should be put in a mental institute along with her husband.
 
 
-19 # America 2011-06-28 13:52
Lets examine the situation:

Ok so Michele Bachmann is homophobic and declares it without reservation. The voters will respond! If it is not a popular position she will go down in flames. So why should we worry? we should be happy.

Now take the other side. Our Obama has really fill-flopped on this. Is he believeable? Is he taking the side which he really believes in or is he just reading the tea leaves. Pardon the pun.
Maybe just maybe Obama thinks like her. Maybe just maybe people will see through him and draw away from him just because they do not know where he stands.

Gotta give her credit for revealing EXACTLY how see feels and she waits for the voters response.

IF you really believe this is the unpopular stance you gotta love what she is doing!!
 
 
+8 # Winter 2011-06-28 17:18
Actually, no. I don't.
 
 
+1 # America 2011-06-29 05:02
Ok so you really believe her position is the popular one and she could win both the nomination for GOP and the general election to be President.
If everyone on the blog agrees with that then I can understand why everyone is paranoid.
Fact is Obama's position on gays 'is evolving' while BAchmann's is well defined.
Do we have a problem here?
 
 
+11 # Reyn 2011-06-29 11:01
I certainly believe that she could win the nomination, yes. I also am not so stupid that I cannot remember that repeatedly in the past, in many democracies - horrible candidates have won during trying times. I also am not so stupid as to think most voters, of either party, actually even know the positions of those they vote for. I would submit that if you think they do - you are wrong.

Kind thoughts,

Reyn
 
 
+3 # kalpal 2011-06-29 06:04
She is a closeted homosexual whose violent antipathy towards homsexuality reflects her own self hatred for lacking the courage to out herself.
 
 
+5 # racp 2011-06-29 07:48
You made me think. Could the 23 foster children thing be part of a gayness treatment? That or to make a living off State money. I still cannot understand it.
 
 
-9 # Jimmy Shirley 2011-06-29 08:32
I dont understand. You said "homophobic". Phobic being a branch of phobia, which is a fear of. I think she does not "fear" homosexuals as much as she has disdain and contempt for and disagrees with their agenda.
 
 
+13 # Reyn 2011-06-29 10:58
A common quibble - usually of those on the Right and those addicted to refusing to allow (for themselves) language to change.

Homophobic is used routinely (and this is acknowledged in dictionaries -- for example, dictionary.com) as meaning a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality. notice the fears OR hates bit? It doesn't matter what the root word was, it doesn't matter what the definition of the root work was. It matters how something is used. English is a LIVING not dead language, and meanings evolve.

Now you know what homophobia means - and yes, she hates and disdains gay people.

As for an agenda. I still haven't gotten my copy. Do you know where I can request it? Gays no more follow one agenda than straights do - and even more than the word quibble, your use of that trope, based in NOTHING real - tells me where you are coming from. Honey, there are gay PEOPLE, there is no gay agenda.

Regards,

Reyn


Quoting Jimmy Shirley:
I dont understand. You said "homophobic". Phobic being a branch of phobia, which is a fear of. I think she does not "fear" homosexuals as much as she has disdain and contempt for and disagrees with their agenda.
 
 
-3 # Radial1971 2011-06-29 12:22
There is a difference, though, between hating people regardless of how they label themselves and between having a dislike of what they do or their sexual habits. I can like someone who has, i.e. more than one spouse - I don't have to like what they do. Even with myself - there are many things that I do or have done that I don't like - that doesn't mean that I don't like myself, etc. I think there needs to be a clarification. A fear of homosexuality also does not relate to disdain or contempt for the behavior (i.e. one can fear clowns, but that doesn't mean that one dislikes their behavior - one might actually like the fact that they bring humor - but have a fear of clowns, etc.). Dislike of a behavior, again, does not equate to dislike of a person.
 
 
+1 # Bob Griffin 2011-07-01 20:37
I believe I understand that. I do not hate Michelle Bachmann, but I have an intense dislike of her political philosophy, her voting habits, and her expressed beliefs.
Although I probably would dislike her as a person, I DO have friends whose politics resemble hers.
 
 
0 # Jimmy Shirley 2011-06-30 09:55
"English is a LIVING not dead language, and meanings evolve."

I suppose you fall into the class of those who hold the U.S. Constitution is a "living document", eh? And meanings of words change, eh? Cant say I disagree with the second assertion. For in this day and time, RIGHT has come to mean wrong, and WRONG has come to mean right.
To illustrate that and to give a timeline of when the world was turned downside-up, consider this. In 1896, the SCOTUS ruled that, among other things, racial segregation was the law of the land, based upon the 14th Amendment. YET, years later in 1954, the SCOTUS ruled racial segregation to be unConstitutiona l based upon the same, unchanged 14th Amendment.
The text of the 14th remained unchanged. However, the Constitution CAN be altered/amended in a manner prescribed in that ancient document because the Founders knew that things change.
But the question remains, which SCOTUS ruling IS the correct one? Because, obviously, one of them is wrong being that they are diametrically opposed rulings.
 
 
0 # Bob Griffin 2011-07-01 20:40
If you want to discover which of two rulings is more correct, then the arguments supporting the rulings are important.
 
 
-2 # Jimmy Shirley 2011-07-02 08:41
It would not matter because it would rest on which argument one agrees with. Based on the longstanding condition of the American Blacks, many today would argue that the 1954 decision has been a spectacular failure, because it has resulted in the dumbing down of the schools to achieve academic parity. They would also claim it brought about a class of perennial losers who have only the race card to fall back on.
They may also claim if the Blacks had continued to follow Booker T. Washington's philosphy of achieving economic parity before attempting social parity, then their moral character would be far better today than what is shown on BET, VH-1 and other culturally-Blac k based media. Check this link to read about that argument between Washington and Du Bois: http://web.archive.org/web/20071011173847/http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/1000/article/999.
It is sadly now only conjecture about whether or not it would have made any difference. With the tanned klan (naacp) focusing only on the removal of all things Confederate, they have given up trying to improve the plight of their own people. They are more concerned about "image" than the real deal, hence their so-called "image awards". Frustration and pathology indeed.
 
 
+19 # Writ711 2011-06-28 13:58
The Republican party seems to have lost their way or at least allowed itself to be taken over by mindsets close to the Nazi/fascist party rather than upholding the American way. They are more about telling Americans to get out of the way while they send their jobs overseas so they can make an extra buck. They rail against Obama's medical plan while putting up nothing on their own. Its almost as if they don't what Americans to have anything. Not medical insurance, not their homes, jobs, or their liberties -- all they do these days is fear monger, hate monger and war monger. Even put up for election some of the stupidest people on the planet, who pretend to be of the people, telling us one thing, while stuffing their pockets with ill-gotten gains.
 
 
+23 # Larry 2011-06-28 14:05
Who knows what demons really drive a right-wing politician's campaign of anti-gay hatred and intolerance?

Recall the scene in Stalag 17 when the despised, suspected spy Sefton, played by William Holden, exposes Price, who is from all appearances the fair-haired all-American boy, as the real traitor. Ironically, because he had been shunned by the rest of the prisoners, the pariah Sefton alone was able to discover that Price, a planted German spy masquerading as an American POW, had been passing information to his Nazi handlers by inserting messages into a chess piece hiding in plain sight; a hollow black queen. To paraphrase Sefton at the public outing of Price, "All the time you were watching us, but who was watching you?" In a movie about an involuntary, closed society where men dance with men, all of its members sharing a terrible secret, the allegory to the closeted, tormented lives of American gays in the 1940's is unmistakable.

I wonder how many of these modern-day GOP gay-bashers are themselves hollow black queens, filled with fear and self-loathing, ostentatiously watching our sexuality, lest we watch theirs.
 
 
+11 # reiverpacific 2011-06-28 14:20
Just wait for the debates (if you can honestly dignify them with that name, as applied to the "selection cycle")!
See what "comes out" of the Republican hot-shots under the media lights, and which ones try to court that strange, small demographic known as the "Log-Cabin (gay)" Republicans.
(Anybody know where that strange title originated by the way?)
As "America" states, at least one knows where she is coming from -"Know thy enemy" is a good phrase to remember. And see if she sticks with it through the batty maelstrom of media-hype.
And I agree that she gets way too much attention but consider the quality of the mainstream media (You never seem to hear Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold or even Bernie Sanders' names on the twit-news channels, eh?).
 
 
+10 # Foxtrottango 2011-06-28 14:28
And they say a man is the anti-Christ?

This insane blabbling fool would introduce the burning of books and the installation of ovens to burn people. She would make Adoph Hitler look like a saint.

Could she be the anti-Christ? I wonder.
 
 
+13 # camus11 2011-06-28 17:34
is the anti-christ that stupid?
 
 
0 # Foxtrottango 2011-07-03 09:34
No, but she is giving him a bad name, isn't she? These right wing fascist republicans are giving the entire country a bad name.
 
 
+19 # brucezell 2011-06-28 15:09
Michelle Bachmann, moron queen of narrow-minded idiots!
 
 
+12 # todd williams 2011-06-28 15:32
Bachmann, Palin and others on the far right talk about "reloading" and "revolution." I find it odd that these nut cases somehow think they have the leg up on revolution. We on the left are quite prepared to do whatever is necessary to stop these nazis from taking over our country. They can take that to the bank!
 
 
+6 # bluescat48 2011-06-28 16:18
Where's her swastika?
 
 
+10 # camus11 2011-06-28 17:33
It's visible every time she opens her evil, ignorant mouth; you don't have to look to closely
 
 
+3 # jwb110 2011-06-28 18:05
Gays and Lesbians in this country will only get the recognition they want when they figure out how to do it economically. Move money to Gay/Lesbian friendly banking institutions. Create Gay/Lesbian investment firms and use only those services. Get your money out of America.
Band together to get these bastards by the wallets. It is the only thing the far Right believes in. They can be trumped by their own greed. If being Gay/Lesbian and not being allowed to participate fully in the greater nation came with a tax break stock brokers would be b-------g one another all over Wall Street to get the break. They only see the $$$$$.
Another good way to let the lunatic fringe Right know how much they ay need us is to make it impossible for the Bachmann/Paling crowd to get their hair styled or cater a party or get a decent dress or any of the other businesses that are represented by the Gay/Lesbian community.
Lastly, go back underground. Find some of us old guys who remember when all American looked like the Conservatives of today. Not quite 40 years have gone by since Stonewall. Young Gays and Lesbians think this stuff is new! It is not! And we got farther sub rosa than we are getting now.
Wanna make a statement this year? Cancel all the Gay Pride Celebrations and instead celebrate at home and in the businesses of other Gays and Lesbian.
 
 
+10 # jamal49 2011-06-28 21:46
Palin is a light-weight, a distraction. Bachmann is serious and a serious contender for the GOP nomination in 2012. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
 
 
+5 # cvahr2 2011-06-29 02:14
Agreed Jamal49. Bachmann is the loony to watch out for.

I doubt that Palin will run for POTUS anyway because there's no easy money in it. She might actually have to answer some hard questions, advance some intelligent ideas and be articulate. Unless she has a brain transplant, I don't see that happening.

It's much easier (and MUCH more lucrative) for her to buzz around the country tossing out her standard lines of shallow nonsensical bullsh*t and rake in the bucks.

On the other hand, she is enough of an egotist that I may be eating those words (except for the brain transplant part) in a few weeks/months.
 
 
-8 # Radial1971 2011-06-29 12:13
There is a difference between being a homophobe and between having faith convictions that marriage is between one man and one woman as God intended it. Even heterosexuals have messed with marriage as God intended, not just homosexuals. We all guilty of sin. However, she is right - marriage is to be between one man and one woman.
 
 
+3 # Pickwicky 2011-06-30 11:40
" . . .as God intended it" Are you referring to the biblical passage where god says, "Go forth and multiply"? --As so many anti-gay and anti-gay marriage folks do? If so, then one of the consequences of that argument is that no couple over 50 years old or so, that is, passed reproductive age, can marry. If marriage is denied to all homosexual couples because they cannot naturally multiply, then marriage must be denied to all heterosexual couples, if they are passed the age where they can bear children. Clearly, that is an undesirable result of your argument.
 
 
+6 # PatriotPaul 2011-06-29 22:18
I have found over the decades that so often those who claim they support equal opportunity for all (except when it comes to women, blacks, or gays and lesbians) are in fact scared of any competition. How awful it would look to them if a woman, or a black person, or god forbid, a gay man showed them up.

Fear is a paralyzing emotion that leads to group think, rumors, and even violence. Until bigots can get some help for their fears the world will continue to have to deal with the Michelle Bachmanns of the world.

Paul Harris
Author, "Diary From the Dome, Reflections on Fear and Privilege During Katrina"
 
 
+1 # Pickwicky 2011-07-02 09:49
Patriot Paul--I must disagree with you. Fear didn't drive the KKK to lynch blacks, it was pride--what the Catholic Church calls the Cardinal sin of Pride--the same action that propelled Lucifer from Heaven to become Satan in Hell, according to the myth. And it's Pride that drives people to torment women, members of other religions, and gays. That type of Pride that results in smug superiority shown to all who don't belong to 'their club,' whether that club be all-white, all-heterosexua l, all-white men, or all-my-religion . It wasn't fear that drove Al Qaeda to hit the Twin Towers and Pentagon, it was overweening religious pride.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN