The much discussed Iowa Marriage Vow Pledge also known as the “Family Leader Pledge” has the signatures of two presidential hopefuls– Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. Both candidates are now back-pedaling like crazy because of some controversial language contained in the pledge that appears to sanction slavery.
According to the Des Moines Register:
The leader of an Iowa conservative organization Monday defended a statement about black children and slavery that it distributed in asking presidential candidates to vow their allegiance to one man/one woman marriage.
At least one presidential candidate, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, condemned the suggestion in the vow’s preamble that black children were better off during slave times. Also Monday, the think tank cited as the basis for the slavery statement denied saying anything like that.
The fact that two candidates, Bachmann and Rick Santorum, quickly signed the 14-point “candidate vow,” then later said they hadn’t read the entire four-page pledge document, highlights the pressure on candidates to prove their social conservative credentials to Iowa voters, politics watchers said.
The Iowa Marriage Vow Pledge can be downloaded here.
Both candidates claim to have not read the verbiage. Bachmann further denounced slavery and argued that the statement was not part of the pledge, only background material.
“I did not see that language. That was not a part of the vow,” Bachmann told reporters during a campaign stop Monday in Indianola.
Traditional marriage is the bedrock of society, Bachmann said. “Children need a mom and a dad in their life, and that’s why I signed it,” she said.
Slavery was a dark time in American history, and “certainly it would be absurd for anyone to think that a child would be better off raised in slavery than not,” Bachmann said. “That’s a terrible thing to say. I’m pleased that this has been taken care of.”
There is a lot more than the slavery statement that needs closer inspection. There are 14 points that are actually part of the pledge. The first 5 seem rather personal:
• “Personal fidelity to my spouse.”
• “Respect for the marital bonds of others.”
• “Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.”
• “Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage — faithful monogamy between one man and one women — through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.”
• “Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy.”
These points seem to require too much intrusion into the bedrooms of others. I think we tend to assume that our elected officials will be faithful to their spouse. Why should our candidates pledge something so personal? Other points require opposition to women in combat, quickie divorces, (whatever that means), action against pornography, forced abortion and forced prostitution. Isn’t much of this simply asking candidates to uphold the law?
At least one candidate, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, has voiced some common sense objections to this ‘purity test.’
Republican candidate Gary Johnson objected to the candidate vow itself, saying it condemn gays, single parents, divorcees, Muslims, women who choose to have abortions “and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting.”
“Government should not be involved in the bedrooms of consenting adults. I have always been a strong advocate of liberty and freedom from unnecessary government intervention into our lives,” Johnson, a former New Mexico governor, said in the statement.
When will the social values crew realize that there are just some areas that are personal? What does a pledge really do? Is this like one of those high school chastity pledges? Will they give the candidates a cheesy little ring to show that they have’taken the pledge?’ This pledge is so fully of litmus tests that it resembles a chemistry lab.
Bring on the adults to lead the country. This test reads like it belongs in high school rather than for serious candidates for president of the United States. I agree with Gary Johnson who calls the pledge:
“offensive and unrepublican,” an “[attempt] to prevent and eliminate personal freedom,” and finally, the “type of rhetoric” that “gives Republicans a bad name.”
So Michele Bachmann believes that the United States should go back to allowing slavery? Talk about low-rent trailer trash. She has no business being in public office. She should be making crystal meth in an outhouse.
Starry, it was a poorly worded comment that was part of the vow. It wasn’t contained in the 14 points and she said she didn’t see it. I certainly don’t think she supports slavery. If I implied that in the article, I certainly did not mean to.
Gotta watch the name calling there. You are getting me in big trouble with the base. re trailer trash, crystal meth in an outhouse.
The next time I hear some left-leaning person howl about the loss of “civility in public discourse,” I’m going to laugh in their face. What jokers.
Emma, don’t be cryptic. If there is a complaint here, express it or email me.
Yeah, that’s what it says. I swear….you and your patron Moon. [FacePalm]
Here, I’ll help you folks out a little. You want something good to pounce on Bachmann over? Try focusing on the “pray away the gay” thing with her husband. That ought to sink her good and proper!
Actually I think pray away the gay is pretty much included with the 14 point pledge. You know, her husband isn’t running for office. The fact that anyone would sign that ridiculous ‘pledge’ is enough. Why go further? Obviously Bachmann has her own base and that’s fine. This is America. She isn’t mainstream and she obviously can’t win in a general election. Therefore, I will cherry pick about poking at her.
However, thanks Slow. There is something about pray away the gay that just reeks of ….oh hell..I don’t know. I guess I am fighting the temptation of saying ‘ignorance.’
I agree that Bachmann would be toast in a general election. However, her inclination, like that of Sarah Palin, to defer to her husband – whether because of their religious beliefs or convenience – puts their spouses in a position to be scrutinized. It’s similar to examining Callista Gingrich’s penchant for diamonds when considering whether Newt is your choice of a fiscal conservative. Leave the kiddos alone, but sometimes the spouse should be fair game particularly when he advocates as a “professional” (his credentials being suspect) such clap-trap.
Good point, Censored. Isn’t Mr. Bachmann very much involved in her campaign? She also is part owner of the clinic where he practices. I am unclear if he has forsaken the ‘pray away the gay’ method of cure or not.
People are entitled to feel however they want about gays. However, they are not free to act any way they want. Additionally, there is a political price tag for being too vocal against any group, especially one of the ‘state of being’ groups.
To the base:
1. perhaps some folks should be concerned about the president’s mother being called a whore on a local blog in the area. That is totally offensive and should not be allowed to remain on that unnamed blog. It would vaporize if made on this blog.
2. Most of the time, folks are unaware of comments that I take down. Don’t assume everything flies.
3. I never promised not to censor. I never will make that promise.
4. Most people just need a cleared throat and a gentle reminder.
5. If you dish it out, know how to take it.
Slow, I think the Republicans are going to take care of Bachmann if TV is any indicator. You know, the old devour your young theory.
More like the old keep your crazy Aunt in the basement theory.
Anybody who wants to see increased unemployment in order to gain political points is unworthy of respect.
Michele Bachmann’s defaulty logic
By Dana Milbank, Thursday, July 14, 2:02 AM
When Michele Bachmann was asked during a television interview last week whether she thought higher unemployment would increase her chances of winning the presidency, she gave an unexpectedly candid reply: “I hope so.”
Now she’s putting that theory to the test. On Wednesday, she argued that failure to raise the debt limit — a prospect that even Republican congressional leaders say could lead to economic catastrophe — might not be such a bad thing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michele-bachmanns-defaulty-logic/2011/07/13/gIQAKtxADI_story.html?hpid=z2
Sounds plausible. Holy Crap! Dana Milbank in post 13. Hey Starry, were you one of the two people who bought his last book? Or did you buy two copies to try to help out?
look, any woman that says her husband is the leader of her household and pays deference to him JUST because he is the man, loses respect in my opinion. Both husband and wife are integral to a healthy relationship, neither is higher in stature.
Starry,
LOVED that op-ed by dana milbank!