Bachmann tries to explain comments about being ‘submissive’
in which, as the headline points out, Bachmann explained a comment she made in when running for congress in 2006, that she was submissive to her husband. She explained the wording of it, and whether you accept her answer or not is beside the point of this blog entry.
Bachmann is a favorite target for her opponents, no doubt about that. She is viewed as a very "traditional values" type of woman who has a limited horizon on how people should live their lives. Cultural Conservative is the term. She is also pretty well known to have said some pretty downright goofy things in public. She has a pretty strong support base as well, with other "traditional values" folk, mostly Christian Conservatives and Tea Partiers. Whenever she says something that is oddly phrased, or just plain ding-batty, there is no end of articles and blogs and biased news sources that take her to task for the remark.
And that's the life of someone in the public eye. Every politician faces it, no matter what his or her platform is, left, right, or centrist. It's the nature of the beast. If you go on the campaign trail, someone's not going to like it, and they will jump on every opportunity to tear you down. If you don't know this and aren't willing to face it, you'll have a very short political career. Bachmann knows this, and she's willing to face the opponents. For this, and perhaps this alone, I respect her.
I do not support her as a candidate. I will make no bones about my belief that if you are a public servant, you serve all the people equally. You don't serve just your supporters. She has made some dangerous comments about being gay, especially in light of the recent states which have allowed gay marriages.
On another news clip from Raw Report, Tim Pawlenty was pressed if he considered gay people to be second class citizen at the Iowa State Fair. Pawlenty's stance is that the country has a strong foundation in traditional marriage, and that allowing gay marriage will rock the foundation of our nation. I can go in different directions with this statement in which I find faulty logic, but that will derail what I'm trying to get at with this entry. What I am saying here is that it is truly a fact that there are many Americans who believe this idea that allowing gay marriage would lead the nation to a veritable Sodom and Gemorrah, and eventually the only recourse is to have deus ex machina swoop in and save the righteous by burning the sinners. What I believe will happen if gay marriage is fully legal and supported is that there will be more a productive citizenry, because those who want to wed will be happy and will no longer have to spend their energy and efforts trying to establish that right, and thus frees up more intellectual and emotional resources to tackle tangible problems like the the failing economy and foreign tensions.
Bachmann holds similar values to Pawlenty and others regarding traditional versus gay marriage. A few months ago, it was a late night show joke about her husband Marcus Bachmann having a counseling clinic to reverse the gay tendencies in youth who were troubled by using such tactics as suppression and prayer, known in the business as conversion therapy. If I am to understand the American Psychological Association's stance on this method, I think the word "Bunk" shows up a lot, usually premised with "A load of".
Check it here.
The Joke is, lookit him! he's queer as a three dollar bill. Check out his dance moves!.
If he ain't gay, neither is John Waters. Etc, etc, etc. That's the joke.
As I mentioned before, if you're gonna go in the limelight, every weakness is exposed and exaggerated. Whether Marcus Bachhmann is a suppressed gay man or not is not the issue. The perception that he is has been the issue, and now it has become a part of his legacy.
On the Bachmann article in Raw Reports, I gleaned the comment section. You can gather a lot of information if you listen to the peanut gallery. Many of the comments were reserved for the actual issue that the clip was getting at, that is that bringing an Evangelical Christian moral value needs some clarification in its wordage. But there were, of course, many comments about her (to use an archaic expression) "wearing the pants in the family" and questioning the manliness of Marcus.
There have been many instances in the past decade or so of a man in the public eye (usually it is a man) who have been caught with their gay pants down. News articles upon news articles can be cited to show how "Anti-gay congressman caught with boy-toy" (or what have you) is rife with the sweet, sweet irony of someone whose actions do not follow his nature. And the public eats it up like candy and says "Now THAT didn't surprise me!"
These types of comments in the Bachmann article, and those similar bother me on a number of levels. First off, I do not know if Marcus is a closeted gay man. To conclude he is gay because of his mannerisms reinforces many stereotypes that need to be weeded in order for the equality that gay activists are trying to achieve and secure. Not all gay men are swishers, that's pretty well-known, I think. By modal logic, not all swishers are gay. He may be straight as an arrow, as he claims. Alternatively, he may be gay and feel guilty about it, and feel that conversion therapy worked for him, it should work for you too.
If he is gay, can you imagine what an emotional and logistical torment he is going through? I understand what it's like to feel that one's sexuality is socially or spiritually the wrong "type." And he's in a political pickle as well if this is the case. If he opens up with a public announcement stating "yes, I am gay", well that pretty much does it in for Michelle having a chance at the presidency. Michelle explained the word "submissive" equaling "supportive" or "respectful" in the news clip, and that being submissive was retrocessive between the spouses. Her house of cards would collapse, because it is basically based on suppressing the rights of gays, and she would be shown as a hypocrite, if those tenets did not also apply to her husband.
So it's strange that those who support NOH8 and wish to provide comfort to those struggling with closet issues would want to abase, humiliate and make a laughing-stock of such a man like Marcus. In fact, that to me seems a bit Pharisaical itself. The "it gets better" campaign ought to apply to him as well as anyone else. The cruelty of those anonymous comments reflects the mindset of the people who are vocal anti-teabaggers. And that to me is a little disturbing, because aren't the using the exact same tactics as those the are against.
Note that I said disturbing, not surprising. Politics is a nasty mud-slinging game, and it brings out the lowest common denominator of people, whichever side they are on. It's a long drawn out "yo mamma" ballet, in which the best zinger-flinger winds up on top in the end, except that there is no end.
If the man is in fact straight, well, I cannot condone his tactics as a counselor. Conversion Therapy does as much to help a struggling gay man or woman as a paper bag over the head covers ugly. It just adds another layer of guilt and self-hatred that needs to be addressed later down the line. And to think that someone who believes such a thing being an effective tool would be in proxy to public policy doesn't sit too well with me. Additionally, if he is straight, these are the slings and arrows that he must bear to be in the public eye, I suppose.
