Innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy

The Iowa Family Leader, a social conservative group has created a pledge for aspiring GOP candidates. Michelle Bachmann has signed it. Huntsman refused. Others are pondering it. I've summarized its various points and added a bit of commentary. You can read the over-the-top language by following the link. I did not go to the original document to read all the supporting justifications. I'm sure the reasoning is as fantasy laden as such groups are famous for.

* Personal fidelity to spouse.

* Respect for the marriage of others (though the part "unless they're gay" is strangely missing).

* Fidelity to the constitution and elevation of only constitutionalist judges (who understand the constitution the same way we do).

* Vigorous opposition to the redefinition of marriage, including opposition of bigamy, polygamy, polyandry, and same-sex marriage.

* Recognition that straight married people and their children just have it better.

* Support the anti-marriage aspects of welfare and tax policy. Ban quickie divorce. (Wait! Isn't divorce the greatest threat to marriage and you're only banning quick divorces?)

* Earnest support for Defense of Marriage Act.

* Steadfast embrace of a federal marriage protection amendment.

* "Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy" (yeah, that just had to be quoted) by protecting them from human trafficking, slavery, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, infanticide, abortion, and "other types of coercion or stolen innocence." (What, you're banning porn? Good luck with that.)

* In the military, keep gays out of shared showers, keep women from serving on the front lines.

* "Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control." (So we don't have any competition with the anti-women, anti-human rights totalitarian control that we listed above. Besides, Sharia law takeover is just so imminent.)

* Recognition that having as many babies as possible is best for America.

* Commitment to shrink government.

* Fierce defense of freedom of speech and religious liberty, especially against faith institutions who defend faithful heterosexuality. (We have freedom of speech. You don't.)

Buried in one of the footnotes is this gem. "No peer-reviewed empirical science or rational demonstration has ever definitively proven, nor even has shown an overwhelming probability, that homosexual preference or behavior is irresistible as a function of genetic determinism or other forms of fatalism." Such a delightful choice for that last word. Translation: Because genetics can't prove who is gay there is no evidence. Thus gays can become straight, and by golly you had better. Of course, our version of creation doesn't need any evidence.

A commenter wonders if Bachmann is getting so much airtime so that Romney, the other GOP front runner, looks downright moderate in comparison.

Bachmann also tells a personal story that implies we don't need a welfare system because poor people will get by with sufficient faith in God.


Contrast all that with a poll done by the National Journal of insiders (operatives, lobbyists, consultants) of both parties asking about marriage equality.

84% of Democrats say their party should support equality-minded legislation (yay!). That's up from 59% two years ago.

14% of Republicans say the GOP should support such legislation (wow, that much!). 56% just want to avoid the issue. That implies they know they are losing the argument and support for gay-bashing is dissipating and becoming less fervent.



Contrast that poll with this action. The Dept. of Defense Appropriations Bill (the thing that allows the DoD to spend money) is working its way through the House. The GOP added a toothless, yet symbolically damaging, amendment -- the DoD is to spend no money on legally married gay spouses (such as family health insurance) because of DOMA. I'm pleased that 6 GOP House members voted against it -- but annoyed that 19 Dem members voted yes.