Monday, July 11, 2011

The Pledge

Apparently Michele Bachmann has signed "The Marriage Vow", a fundamentalist anti-gay pledge.  The pledge is below in italics, my comments in standard text. 

The Candidate Vow:
Therefore, in any elected or appointed capacity by which I may have the honor of serving our fellow citizens in these United States, I the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* to honor and to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only between one man and one woman.  I vow* to do so through my:

Personal fidelity to my spouse.
Should be between me and my spouse--Different people may have different agreements--fidelity is following your personal agreement as amended by mutual consent.

Respect for the marital bonds of others.
...except those we don't think should be allowed to marry.

Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.
This one I can agree with, except that the definition of 'faithful constitutionalist' is uselessly vague.

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.
Should not be the government's business to define marriage.  Marriage should be spiritual, between the parties involved and not to get government benefits.  Was Loving vs. Virginia a redefinition of marriage, previously only available to people of the right racial combinations?

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. 
...but we don't want gays and lesbians to have these benefits.  There is certainly a benefit to having two parents who cooperate and care, especially when compared to having a single indifferent parent.  I have not seen any evidence that certain gender combinations are unsuccessful at raising children.

Support for prompt reform of uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, ...
Not awful, I guess. policy, and marital/divorce law, and extended “second chance” or “cooling-off” periods for those seeking a “quickie divorce.
What does this accomplish?

Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal and state levels.
How does restricting who can marry 'defend' marriage?

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.  
It is already too late for this amendment, you couldn't even get a simple majority to agree, and that support is diminishing every year.

Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children –...
But apparently illegitimate bastards don't deserve humane protection.  And why the tortured language here?
...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.
So long as all involved are consenting adults, porn, prostitution, and promiscuity don't belong in the same bucket as human trafficking, slavery of any kind, or infanticide.

Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried
why not just say 'all' here?--is there a third classification of people besides 'married' and 'unmarried' that I'm unaware of?
 U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender
Again, is there a third classification?
sexual harassment, 
From what little I know, we need to make a much stronger commitment to ending male on female sexual harassment in the military--a much bigger problem than gay on straight harassment.
How are politicians going to protect military personnel from adultery?
or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); 
Gay Cooties!  The gaze of a homosexual
(In the 80's, once I was out of tech school my barracks were co-ed, although we had separate showers)
plus prompt termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.
...even if the woman involved is aware of the danger and has volunteered to serve--since awful things never happen to men in war.

 Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.
More grandstanding, and overly simplistic.   If a couple with a family were married under Sharia law, are they no longer married in the US?

Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.
Huh?  This sounds like "have more children so the Social Security Ponzi lasts longer!"

Commitment to downsizing government and the enormous burden upon American families of the USA‟s $14.3 trillion public debt, its $77 trillion in unfunded liabilities, its $1.5 trillion federal deficit, and its $3.5 trillion federal budget.
Finally, another pledge I can agree with.

Fierce defense of the First Amendment‟s rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy
Only OUR intolerance should be tolerated.


  1. Sevesteen's Kid2:24 PM

    Thanks for posting this, Dad. I wasn't aware of this awful vow. I don't understand how one can stand for freedom, justice and equality, and try to impose an idea that directly conflicts with that.

    He speaks against coercion among other things, and I want to ask him: How is it not coercion to deny a person the opportunity to serve their country based on anything but their ability to do the task assigned? How is it not coercion to prevent the right to chose a life partner if the partner does not fit the 'appropriate' designation, and with that, what is the appropriate designation? How is it not totalitarian control when a person is denied the human right of gender expression, sexual preference, of identity by imposing the loss of basic civil rights when they do not follow a narrow set of ideals? How do you protect a child when this vow, these acts, strip that very child of American civil rights, human rights and simple dignity, because the kid happened to express his sexuality or gender perhaps before he was even aware of it?

    And...while my sexuality wouldn't change your views on this, thank you for your tolerance, and in my specific case, the understanding, support and love WITHOUT my needing asking for it.

  2. I thought more of her before this charade.