Michele Bachmann’s recent decision to sign something called the “Marriage Vow” has the Internet up in arms. An aide said she did not hesitate to sign. Maybe she didn’t hesitate because she didn’t read it. Signing this vow is tantamount to shoving someone else’s foot in your mouth.
By signing, she agreed to ban pornography, called homosexuality a choice, and implied that slavery – while not perfect – at least guaranteed that children grew up in two-parent households. Among other things.
And for what? This is a pledge for being endorsed not by the Family Leader but by the “FAMiLY LEADER.” This is a subtle and meaningful distinction!
If you want reassurance that the pledge you are signing to declare homosexuality a choice and postmarital sex The Best And Only Sex is legitimate, look no further than whether or not the name of the organization in question is erratically capitalized…
A few hours after signing, reports the New York Daily News:
The Minnesota representative tried to distance herself from the controversial slavery passage, claiming she only endorsed the “candidate vow” not its preamble.
The congresswoman’s spokeswoman, Alice Stewart, told Politico.com that Bachmann “stands behind the candidate vow – which makes absolutely no reference to slavery.”
She said Bachmann “believes that slavery was horrible and economic enslavement is also horrible.”
Now the slavery reference in this pledge was sufficiently bad that the group who authored it has apologized. And it’s true that former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum also got suckered into putting his name on this ridiculous and politically self-destructive pledge. But Santorum isn’t the one making headlines as a “potentially viable” candidate for President.
And it’s just the latest in what’s quickly becoming a daily parade of Michele Bachmann absurdities–just a couple of days ago, Bachmann was drawing scorn for defending other very incorrect statements she has made about slavery in the past. It’s not the only issue on which Bachmann’s opinion is just plain Sarah Palin-grade nonsense, but it’s an especially bad one to get wrong as a presidential candidate. It’s becoming painfully obvious, in fully objective and bipartisan terms, just how unqualified Bachmann is–and how skewed from the mainstream her worldview, and that of the hard right conservatives supporting her, really is.
The only offset here is that many in the segment of the GOP base supporting her may not care–and might honestly embrace whatever edited Wikipedia version of history they have to.