Michele Bachmann Pledges to Ban Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Pornography
Is the Tea Party just a re-branding of the Republican Party? Is it a unique entity that values freedom and small government in the way that the old Republican party doesn't?
Will the Tea Party be able to squelch the socially conservative wing of the Republican party long enough to get our Budget under control?
Sadly, the answer is no. Not if Tea Party Caucus Leader Michele Bachmann has her way.
The Tea Party formed as a protest against taxation. The idea was that our economy was in such dire straits that we had to focus on it at the exclusion of all other issues. There was a lot of disagreement about exactly how small the government should be. The answer varied from anarchists to supporters of George Bush.
However, it was generally agreed that fiscal problems were the most dire we faced. Our nation faced (and still faces) such an emergency that everything else had to take a back seat to the deficit.
That was the dream anyway. In fairly short order, it became apparent that the Tea Party was being co-opted by the Republican party. We started to see the grandiose claims of budget cuts fading into meaningless tiny compromises. Amy Kremer the head of Tea Party Express said: "You’re going to have those purists, those hard-liners, who say, ‘Shut down the government and cut everything'. But that’s not practical. That’s not being realistic. ” Next a survey found that 70% of Tea Party members opposed cuts to Medicare.
Now to add insult to the injury of ignoring our budget problems. the Tea Party is increasingly pushing a religion based socially conservative message. Today, Tea Party Caucus leader Michele Bachmann signed the FAMiLY LEADER pledge. You should really read the whole thing, because a handful of excerpts can't properly convey the entirety of the horror.
Among the many odious provisions contained in the pledge:
· Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage – faithful monogamy between one man and one woman – through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc
· Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal and state levels.
· Steadfast embrace of a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in all of the United States.
· Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children – from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.
We find all the usual religious right violations of liberty. This is very explicitly a call for the forceful imposition of Christian norms onto the rest of society. The pledge slathers its force with a mock respect for the constitution. However it's plain that the Bible comes ahead of the constitution anytime supernatural commandments contradict the freedoms protected by the founders. Bachmann, along with FAMiLY LEADER, merrily ignore the freedom of association, freedom of speech, and the control of your own body.
It's an explicit promise to use force against innocent people. Bachmann is pledging to use government force to repress speech, and relationships that the Bible frowns upon. Monogamy is nowhere mandated by the constitution. The government has no legitimate justification to push it. Polygamy between consenting adults simply doesn't involve a violation of rights. Marrying someone of the same sex simply doesn't harm anyone else. It isn't an initiation of force or fraud against anyone. Taking pictures of naked people certainly doesn't involve physical force or fraud, and so the government cannot do anything to restrict it in a free society.
Abortion is perhaps the worst part of this pledge. I won't go too deep into detail on how monstrous prohibiting abortion is because so many have done so before. I highly recommend you check out this paper by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh for more detail.
America is not a Christian nation, it was built upon the ideals of liberty, reason, and individual rights. By signing this pledge, Bachmann has pronounced herself an enemy of all three.
Rational Public Radio is an Objectivist podcast and blog, a.k.a., the rallying center for reasoned warriors in the fight to gain and keep individual freedom.
Comments
Still, what is odious about defending the traditional definition of marriage?
When you say "Monogamy is nowhere mandated by the constitution" - no, but heterosexual monogamy has always been the interpretation of U.S. marriage laws. That the U.S. Constitution doesn't say so explicitly is precisely why the federal Marriage Amendment is necessary.
You say "forceful imposition of Christian norms onto the rest of society" - true only inasmuch as that is the status quo. You make it sound like a radical marauding force, when we're talking about keeping things the way they've always been.
I'm not with Bachmann on pornography and abortion (neither should be a federal issue). And yes, none of these positions are "Tea Party". But she represents herself; these are her stands. Nobody has claimed she is "Tea Party and nothing but Tea Party".
As far as marriage goes..it DOES have a definition...what is yours?
It is difficult to tell whether that pledge is saying that they wish to ban pornography or just protect children from child pornography.
She is not talking about keeping things the way they have always been. Pornography hasn't always been illegal, and neither has abortion.
Gay marriage has been, but pledging to continue a violation of rights just because it is the "status quo" is still using government force against innocent people.
She pledged to support: Humane protection of women...from...all forms of pornography.
That's the way I read it. Coming from a source like this, I think that is the correct interpretation.
If Conservatives are this country's best hope for the defense of freedom and the American way of life, then it's already over.
A people who believe in the magical powers of gods is a people who will not be free for very long.
What, they are tax exempt because they provide real opposition to the forces and the force of government?
The church delivers the sheep--that's why they are tax exempt. These same people are leading us to the same end as the Progressives/Communists, albeit at a slightly slower pace, and always with 'love of god and country' on the tips of their slave tongues.
The knowledge that the courts are likely to over-turn any laws she signs regarding these subjects doesn't overcome the fact that she wants to do it in my mind. If she is so ready to use government force to push her religious beliefs in these areas where else will she? Are you sure the courts will overrule all of those too?
Quoting jeffrpr:
She certainly does have some positives to her, which is why I was so disappointed to see her sign this pledge. I already dislike Obama about as much as I can, so I wouldn't really care if he was pushing religion too.
Quoting jeffrpr:
Marriage -noun 1a the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.
Really though, I see no reason why the government should be permitted to limit the institution to just two people.
The best solution is to have a total separation of marriage and state. Marriage should be a private contractual agreement that is of no interest to the government.
Part a (the traditional definition) is a relic of Christian influence on the English language, and not a complete definition in my mind.
Using that definition, if a man marries two women none of them are married. It isn't 1 Man + 1 Woman, so it doesn't count. Christians may not like such an arrangement, but to say that it doesn't qualify as marriage at all seems willfully obtuse to me.
RSS feed for comments to this post