This might just be one of the dumbest things i've seen all year and i've seen a lot of dumb things. A right-wing advocacy group in Iowa has created a pledge for the GOP presidential hopefuls to sign. Instead of it being about doing the will of the people, it's about many wonderful things. Things like keeping gay people from marrying, stopping Sharia Law, and "protecting" women and children from pornography. Michele Bachmann is the first of them to sign the pledge. For those of you who have yet to read the pledge, I will list all 14 vows and add a bit of commentary for you. I apologize for the length.
Personal fidelity to my spouse.
This is something that republicans SHOULD NOT sign. Especially if your name is Newt Gingrich or David Vitter and those are just two examples. If "personal fidelity" is what they are looking for, they might just want to look elsewhere.
Respect for the marital bonds of others.
Ah yes. Respecting the marital bonds of others. I'll sum this one up rather quickly because the rest of these are too good. If you want someone who is going to not only respect that, you might not need to look at the part of sticking their noses into other people's business.
Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.
Ok. Here is my problem with this. If you ask most of the republican candidates, they will tell you they are against abortion. We know how they feel about it and we've seen their colleagues sign bills that degrade women because of their choice. They will all be viewed as heroes to the anti-choice movement, but their disdain for women does not fix the economy. As far as the judges and justices go, i'm sure they could find a more faithful constitutionalist than, oh I don't know, Clarence Thomas.
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.
Here we go!! Now for the fun parts. The "Institution of Marriage." We have to protect it all all costs because they wouldn't want any gays changing it. Now, I don't know about you, but I have NEVER heard any gay person say they want to get married so they can destroy the "Institution of Marriage." Now, if Newt Gingrich can cheat on two of his wives, I see no problem with a man having two or more wives or a woman having two or more husbands. If you want the headache and the trouble when it comes to buying gifts, fine. Be my guest. I also do not see how same-sex marriage is ruining the country. I guess I don't see it because it isn't true.
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.
This is hilarious. Now these wonderful statistics come from a lovely website called familyfacts.org. It's important to note two things. First, most of their data is outdated, but that's alright. Not going to penalize them for that. The second thing that must be noted is that Family Facts is a part of The Heritage Foundation.
Support for prompt reform of uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy, and marital/divorce law, and extended “second chance” or “cooling-off” periods for those seeking a “quickie divorce.”
I would think that when a couple decides to get a divorce, they know what they want to do. What is it with these people wanting to interfere in the person lives of other people? "Second chance" and "cooling-off" periods? What if the husband has been repeatedly beating the hell out of his wife and cheating on her? What if the wife has been doing the same? You mean to tell me that these people want politicians to fix things where those two people have to stay in their toxic relationship even longer?
Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal and state levels.
Back to the gay-bashing. The Obama Administration has been under fire by right-wingers for it's decision to no longer defend DOMA. So, if you're going to run for president as a republican and you sign this, you had better make sure you are going to defend this. I mean you can't have gay people actually thinking they are getting closer to equality now.
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.
Yet again, more gay-bashing. Now these are the people who are for smaller government. Why do they insist on creating more government? Why in the hell are they lobbying to politicians who hate the government to create larger government?
Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children – 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.
Here we go. I'm all for protecting women. I'm all for fighting human trafficking, sexual slavery, and infanticide. I have a HUGE problem with these morons comparing abortion to any of these things. What they have done is claim that they care about the safety and health of women. Then, they turned around and claimed that they don't feel that women are smart enough to make their own decisions in regards to their reproductive system. That's all being against abortion is about. They think women are stupid. If you stand for reproductive freedom, you shouldn't sign this bill.
Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); 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.
The last part of this is important to note. These people are not comfortable with women being on the battlefield. I think it's nonsense. Why should women not be allowed to participate in combat? According to a poll done by the Washington Post, 7 out of 10 Americans support allowing women to serve ground combat. They would face the same dangers men face. I believe this is just another way for them to say that they feel women belong in the kitchen, not on the battlefield.
Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.
Yes, Sharia Islam. The thing that we here conservatives fear-monger about daily. First, Sharia Law is NOT going to become the law of America. That's it. Conversation over. They continue to pound that talking point home so they can shore up support for their bigotry against muslims and arab people in general (with the exception of those who convert to Christianity.) If the people believe that Sharia Law could become the law of this country, they are going to be scared. They are going to be more supportive of witch-hunts and wars.
Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.
They want you to have more babies. Keep having American babies. Real American babies. Babies you would see at NASCAR races. Babies you would see at Tea Parties. Why would they want that? Oh I don't know. Maybe it's because this nation will soon see minorities as the new majority.
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.
This would make a little bit of sense if they had included things that the American people support. You know, things like raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, ending oil subsidies, and closing tax loopholes. They also would've been taken more seriously if they had explained why we are in this economic mess right now.
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.
Here's what this means. Bigotry towards gay people should be fine and dandy if it is coming from a religious viewpoint. What they don't understand is that they have a right to be anti-LGBT. However, we have the right to mock them until the end of their lives. We have the right to refuse to give them our service. We don't have to respect their viewpoint. We can also mock their religion as well. This is what these people do not want. They want their friends to be able to spew as much hate as possible and not be called out on it.
I'm probably reading too much into this. Michele Bachmann would probably make a great president and do everything in her power to keep us from becoming a theocracy. Probably not.
4:03 PM PT: As of this afternoon, Rick Santorum also signed this pledge. This isn't a shock. If it has anything to do with bashing gay people and keeping women from having control of their bodies, he's all in.