Michele Bachmann told David Gregory on Meet The Press yesterday that she doesn't "judge" gays and lesbians. But oh she does:
"It's sad," she continues. "Any of you who have members of your family that are in the lifestyle - we have a member of our family that is - this is not funny. It's a very sad life." Bachmann has a stepsister who is gay.
She goes on to say that it is "profoundly sad to recognize that almost all, if not all, individuals who have gone into the lifestyle have been abused at one time in their life."
Bachmann argues that legalizing same-sex marriage - which she describes as "bringing it into the mainstream if you will, giving it a legitimacy" - will impact all Americans, "particularly the schools." She says it means teachers will be forced to teach "sexual identity" in a way that suggests homosexuality is acceptable.
She says "children would have to be taught a falsehood because they're in a captive audience in the public schools, they couldn't get out."
Later, Bachmann says being "involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle" amounts to "personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement." She also describes homosexuality as "sexual anarchy." She goes on to lament efforts by gay rights advocates to convince Americans that homosexuality is "just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders."
She also refers to children being taught that gays and lesbians are normal is a form of "child abuse," but hey, she's not judging.
I should add that "judgement" here is beside the point. It's a free country, you can have whatever opinions about people you want. What's at issue here for most gays and lesbians is that Bachmann doesn't just judge them, she's a zealous advocate for laws and policies that treat gays and lesbians as victims of a psychological disorder who aren't deserving of the same individual rights as everyone else. That's the issue. If Bachmann let go of her support of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, her opposition to gay and lesbian servicemembers serving openly and her opposition to anti-discrimination legislation I suspect not too many people would care whether she personally "judged" individuals based on their sexual orientation or not. The issue is her willingness to use the coercive power of the state to deny other people rights based on her personal religious views on homosexuality.
Also let's not forget--being gay is the kind of "bondage" that threatens children's lives and demands federal intervention, not say, people dying because they afford dental insurance. That would be a "nightmare."
You may also like:
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)