Maybe Michele Bachmann is reluctant to elaborate on her views on homosexuality with reporters because—gasp!—she doesn’t care.
On Sunday’s Meet the Press, host Dick Gregory badgered Bachmann about comments she had made seven years ago on her interpretation of the Bible’s statements on homosexuality.
Since 2004, the country has radically evolved in its understanding and acceptance of homosexuality, including its approval of same-sex couples getting married and adopting. Gay marriage is legal in six states plus D.C. and available to 11% of the country’s population. Gay marriage was used as a wedge issue in many states in the 2004 Congressional elections, but in 2008 it was used as such primarily in the context of California’s Proposition 8. Prominent Republicans who now support same-sex marriage include Dick Cheney, Laura and Barbara Bush, Cindy and Meghan McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, S. E. Cupp, Margaret Hoover, Ted Olsen, and Vaughn Walker. Countless other prominent Republicans favor gay civil unions; most didn’t back in 2004. Even Ann Coulter was recently appointed Honorary Chair of the Advisory Council for gay conservative group GOProud.
Bachmann’s views on gay issues have also presumably evolved since 2004, or else she would have racked up a lot more anti-gay statements since then. All of the Bachmann homosexuality quotes the media have been broadcasting appear to have emanated from just two sources: a two-part March 2004 interview she gave on the local Minnesota radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News” and a November 2004 address she delivered at the EdWatch National Education Conference. That’s it. If Bachmann had truly been waging an anti-gay jihad for the past seven years, liberals wouldn’t have had to dig up archives of obscure evangelical talk shows and one-off education conferences from George W. Bush’s first term to find recordings of self-incriminating statements.
Bachmann’s position on gay marriage roughly mirrors President Obama’s. Like Republicans Rick Perry and Herman Cain, she prefers allowing states to implement gay marriage if they choose—a position even Obama has barely uttered his support for. She favors a constitutional amendment defining marriage as opposite-sex, which Obama opposes—though she well knows that such an amendment has little chance of becoming law.
If Bachmann weren’t too polite to share it, her response to repeated questions on her views on homosexuality would be, “Oh, God… not again. Really?”
Bachmann clearly cares first and foremost about federal spending and national defense. She became a conservative rock star two years ago as the most prominent elected official to spearhead the nascent Tea Party movement, with its primary goal of stopping ObamaCare and runaway government spending. She has voiced vociferous, well-informed support of Israel and our military missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran to stop the threat of Islamic terrorism to the U.S. These are the things that keep her awake at night—not whether Ellen DeGeneres gets a marriage license instead of a domestic partnership.
On Meet the Press, Bachmann addressed Gregory’s questions on homosexuality by insisting that she is not one to “judge” anyone. She affirmed that she would not use sexual orientation as a criterion in hiring for positions in her administration or for judgeships. Why wasn’t that a good enough answer for Gregory, who continued to hound her on her theory of human sexuality? What was she supposed to do—declare herself a True Blood fan and invite Gregory out for cosmos? Why don’t reporters grill Obama about his opposition to gay marriage, bludgeoning him with the same boring questions and refusing to accept his self-protective platitudes on his eternally “evolving” stance?
Liberals call Bachmann a hypocrite and claim they object to her “double-talk” and dodging questions. They declare that they would have more respect for her if she simply endorsed her past statements point-blank. What if she doesn’t quite believe them anymore? What if the issue isn’t as important to her, or wouldn’t be a legislative priority for her if she became president? Bachmann repeatedly responded to Gregory’s questions by reminding him that she is running for the presidency of the United States. If she believes gay marriage should be dealt with by the states, then why would a President Bachmann staring down a $14 trillion deficit and a hostile Middle East worry about Neil Patrick Harris’s love life?
Liberals aren’t upset about a Bachmann presidency because they fear she would roll back gay rights or slow the national tide of increasing acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage. As with Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, and Sharron Angle, the left are using a few nutty, outdated statements to stop a genuine reformer and charismatic populist, whose views on social issues are probably evolving like everyone else’s, from getting into office. Liberals can’t stand the fact that Bachmann might effect real change on causes that are anathema to them, such as slashing unsustainable entitlement spending and stopping the worldwide spread of Sharia.
Print This Post
- Rep. Bachmann Clarifies Gay Marriage Opposition: I’m Not Running To Be Anyone’s Judge (mediaite.com)
- Could Anti-Gay Politics Sink A Presidential Campaign? (towleroad.com)
- Bachmann challenged on anti-gay comments (salon.com)
- Bachmann wins first poll of Republican contest for 2012 presidential candidate (guardian.co.uk)
- Gay conservative group requests meeting with Bachmann (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)