Michele Bachmann Update: Bachmann is first to sign Family Leader’s pro-marriage pledge

sailingaway

sailingaway

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
72,103
Update: Bachmann is first to sign Family Leader’s pro-marriage pledge

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.c...t-to-sign-family-leaders-pro-marriage-pledge/

Drew Ivers, Iowa campaign chairman for Paul’s campaign, said the congressman has concerns about the pledge because it calls for a federal marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “He is very strong pro-traditional marriage, but he doesn’t want the government to dictate and define traditional marriage. That should be between a man and a woman and the church if they choose to have a church wedding.”

The candidates are being asked to respond to the pledge requests by Aug. 1. Vander Plaats said he expects the responses to be shared with the public around the time of the Iowa State Fair, which begins Aug. 11 and prior to the Ames Straw Poll on Aug. 13.
Click to expand...

Bachmann wants the GOVERNMENT to have the ability to define marriage? What if it defined marriage contrary to HER beliefs?
 
Last edited:
This is the pledge:

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.
  • Respect for the marital bonds of others.
  • Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.”
  • Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal and state levels.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.
  • Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.
  • 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.
  • 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.
 
In addition, candidates are asked to recognize that “robust childrearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.”
Click to expand...

This sounds like something that is more Nazi than Libertarian. Are they going to examine sperm samples to guarantee "robust reproduction". I thought the Tea Party is for downsizing government. How is forcing candidates to recognize robust reproduction downsizing government? What is behind this madness? Are the Republicans determined to return to Salem, Mass, 1692?
 
ItsTime said:
Another big government republican.
Click to expand...

No you have it all wrong. She wants the federal government to dictate what marriage is through an amendment but says that states have the right to decide and not listen to the federal government which makes such an amendment pointless or some crazy ass stupid stuff like that.
 
so she proves she is for bigger government and government backed marriages!!! next obama vs Ron Paul vs obama republicans!!
 
Last edited:
specsaregood said:
No you have it all wrong. She wants the federal government to dictate what marriage is through an amendment but says that states have the right to decide and not listen to the federal government which makes such an amendment pointless or some crazy ass stupid stuff like that.
Click to expand...

^^^ this
 
sailingaway said:
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.c...t-to-sign-family-leaders-pro-marriage-pledge/

Bachmann wants the GOVERNMENT to have the ability to define marriage? What if it defined marriage contrary to HER beliefs?
Click to expand...

Exactly. That is what so many people don't seem to get. If they advocate for using BIG government (which often makes it even bigger) to force their unconstitutional personal beliefs down everyone's throats, then so to will the people who have beliefs totally opposite from them. So, if any of these people ever lament the size of our federal government and the debt burden they have placed on each and every one of us, they have no further to look than the mirror to find who is at fault.

I sincerely understand some of their concerns, but this is not the way. Better to move these decisions down to the states, where each of us has much more of an impact. It also keeps lobbies, many of whom we may disagree with, from forcing their wishes on all the citizens in all of the states. Actually, that is true with most things; which is why our Founding Fathers designed it that way.

This is kind of a rant, but I keep thinking about the Department of Education. I cannot believe that we (Americans) allowed the federal government to take over the education of our children. I mean, seriously. Where were our heads? There was no DOE when I was a child and children were better educated. They may not have been taught to be "global citizens" and politically-correct, but they darn sure learned how to read, write and astonishingly, spell. :eek: Kids also studied our Founding Fathers, read and studied the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Amazing. Compare that to now.

Back then, the parents in PTAs and all parents, for that matter, had a lot of pull. My Mother actually used to obtain copies of all my textbooks well before each school year even started and read every one of them. I know at least one of them my Mother got thrown out and then there was that one teacher... ROFL. Parents had a LOT of impact; as should be the case.
 
Last edited:
It's interesting. I see that some (but probably many) libertarians recognize that the federal government is there to protect some unalienable truths and rights, like the right to speech, property etc., but apparently not others.

What some libertarians here don't realise is that the basis for the liberty, and indeed the Constitution, is the natural law. Liberty is meaningless without a timeless, truthful foundation. The founders realised this.

Marriage is part of the natural law. The union between a man and woman is inherent and essential to human nature. The union of these two elements leads to the creation of a new human being and the continuance of the species. Marriage is a fundamental aspect of a free society.

Now I'm not for government creating rules and legislation about marriage, in theory. I'd rather the whole lot privatised. But when governments like New York try to fundamentally distort reality and the natural law, there's a point at which it has to stop.

Another example is abortion. The right to exist is the first human right, the basis for all other rights. And marriage, though not a right, is the foundation for free society.
 
sailingaway said:
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.c...t-to-sign-family-leaders-pro-marriage-pledge/

Bachmann wants the GOVERNMENT to have the ability to define marriage? What if it defined marriage contrary to HER beliefs?
Click to expand...

The thing is that marriage has an objective reality to it - it is the union of a man and woman. Bachmann doesn't want government to DEFINE marriage, she wants it to protect marriage.

Think about it this way, if New York had just passed a bill decreeing that elephants were humans too, Bachmann wouldn't therefore be trying to impose her definition of what it is to be human on others - she'd simply be trying to protect the reality of the definition of what constitutes a human.
 
: "A spokesman for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, said the congressman has reservations"
Click to expand...

Does this mean that Ron Paul won't sign it, or that he has to look it over and think about it?
 
YumYum said:
Does this mean that Ron Paul won't sign it, or that he has to look it over and think about it?
Click to expand...

It sounded to me like he hadn't seen it yet but didn't like the sound of it. A whole MESS of the stuff in that pledge is at minimum at state not federal level, even apart from the marriage issue.
 
JohnEngland said:
It's interesting. I see that some (but probably many) libertarians recognize that the federal government is there to protect some unalienable truths and rights, like the right to speech, property etc., but apparently not others.

What some libertarians here don't realise is that the basis for the liberty, and indeed the Constitution, is the natural law. Liberty is meaningless without a timeless, truthful foundation. The founders realised this.

Marriage is part of the natural law. The union between a man and woman is inherent and essential to human nature. The union of these two elements leads to the creation of a new human being and the continuance of the species. Marriage is a fundamental aspect of a free society.

Now I'm not for government creating rules and legislation about marriage, in theory. I'd rather the whole lot privatised. But when governments like New York try to fundamentally distort reality and the natural law, there's a point at which it has to stop.

Another example is abortion. The right to exist is the first human right, the basis for all other rights. And marriage, though not a right, is the foundation for free society.
Click to expand...

I don't think libertarians object to the natural law view. In fact I would say just the opposite. As a libertarian, I place natural law above "Constitutionalism." However, I don't see anything natural about marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top