Kathryn Lopez on What Bachmann Didn't Say About Marriage


In Headline Bistro:

The whole segment [of Michele Bachmann on Meet The Press with David Gregory] saddened me -- not necessarily because of what she had said, but what she didn’t say. Perhaps what she couldn’t ever possibly say effectively on a political Sunday show.

The only way that conversation could have truly progressed would have been if it was allowed to go way deeper. Something tells me a political adviser would rather it had just shut down...

We’re never going to have a sensible conversation about same-sex marriage without having a much more fundamental one about marriage itself, about the purpose of sex, and about what love really is. And that’s not one that’s going to happen adequately on a Sunday talk show or the campaign trail.


  1. LBGayComm
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    Kind of odd that politicians, who even 5 years ago would have jumped at the chance to talk about their opposition to marriage equality, now want to change the subject and run away.

  2. Gothelittle
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    Not so odd if you consider their treatment at the hands of gay activists. Lost a bunch of the traditional marriage expert witnesses in the Prop 8 trial because when the judge decided to televise it, they backed out citing concerns for their families' safety.

    It's a sad thing when threats of violence from a minority group shuts the mouths of the majority. I would've hoped this nation was past that.

  3. Mike Brooks
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    Politicians should be free to speak the truth: that homosexuals are a group of individuals who choose to participate in homosexual behavior. Like alcoholics and others with psychological propensities to engage in damaging behaviors, it is in society's best interest to try to help these people avoid such behaviors not encourage them.

    There is no sexuality requirement for marriage; just a sex requirement. Homosexuals, like alcoholics have always been free to marry; that is, commit to a lifelong union with someone of the opposite sex.

  4. Jimbob60
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    People are born gay but not born alcoholic. One will not find sensible conversations about civil marriage equality here on NOM. NOM thinks they have a monopoly on wanting strong marriages and feel anyone who favors marriage equality wants to destroy marriage. Gay people who marry are very pro marriage. Marriage equality will further strengthen marriage.

  5. Louis E.
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    Whether or not homosexual orientation is inborn,people only become "gay" when they acquire the delusion that this somehow entitles them to escape censure for homosexual activity.Nothing that does not unite male to female is a marriage,and abandonment of that principle destroys marriage.

  6. j. fox
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    SSM extremists are also targeting Catholic charities in key states, attacking religious liberty and freedom. This persecution will not stop us nor deter us from the fight for traditional marriage.

  7. catholicdad
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

    There is a simple solution. Unite jun support of all politicians who defend our values. Support them, withhold support from their opponents. Civilization depends upon the defeat of the morally depraved secular fundamentalists.

  8. Jimbob60
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Catholicdad, as a fellow Catholic (8yrs grammar school under the Domincan sisters and 4 years of high school under the Jesuits), I say we render to Caesar what is his. This issue is civil marriage, pure and simple. We live in a great country that cherishes freedom for all. We have religious freedom in this great land of ours. Recently, a male friend of mine married his male partner of many years in a ceremony that was overseen by a rabbi. Both men are Jewish. It is no right of mine as a Catholic to say that the state cannot recognize their union because it infringes on my religious freedom. It is outright crazy to even think such a thing. Let's live and let live. In the countries where Caesar tries to play God, Saudia Arabia and Iran, no one is free.

  9. Louis E.
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    The state has a duty to the public interest to refuse to recognize any union that is not male-female as a marriage.Religions can call anything they want a marriage but there is no public interest in promoting any union that is not male-female.

  10. SueV
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    I cannot for the life of me figure out the moderation of comments on this site. Sigh. Welcome back Gothelittle!! I missed ya 🙂

  11. Jimbob60
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    Louis E. There are many heterosexual marriages I can point to that serve no public interest. If public interest is the criterion for marriage, then I suspect very few people should be getting married

  12. Randy E King
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    I need to hear but one thing from ANY perspective Presidential candidate:

    "My name is not-Obama and I'm running for President of the United States of America."

  13. Louis E.
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    Whatever other failings they may have,their being opposite-sex is a way in which all opposite-sex marriages serve the public interest.We need a cohesive recognition of that pattern as the exclusive norm.

  14. catholicdad
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    Jimbob: You claim to be a Catholic, but you explicitly reject the teaching of the Church. With this truth in view, we can correctly understand the irony of your comment "It is no right of mine as a Catholic to say that the state cannot recognize their union". To the contrary, the state has no right at all to impose its secular humanist religious fundamentalism upon the people, Catholic or otherwise. The people have voted for gender-unitive marriage because it reflects their values- religious, philosophical, sociological and biological. You argue for the imposition of a state religion of secular humanism, which is grotesquely unconstitutional.

  15. Jimbob60
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    Catholicdad. I want no state imposed religion of any sort. As I have pointed out, countries with state imposed religions allow for no freedoms at all. State recognition of my gay Jewish friend's marriage to his Jewish partner of many years is not an imposition on anyone. Your life has not been changed at all by the state recognition. I seek to overturn DOMA so that a gay American Catholic friend of mine who I met while living overseas can return to the US with his non American partner of 13 years and care for his aging parents. If my friend were born heterosexual and not born gay, he could legally bring his partner to the US. Marriage equality is a human issue. It is an issue of the US living up to its ideals of equality. Recall this past Sunday's gospel and the Canaanite woman. At the Mass I attended, the priest stressed that message of that gospel was acceptance of others especially those who may be different than us. The Lord has made a diversified people. Our diversity is a reflection of the Lord's face.

  16. catholicdad
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    Jimbob: To the contrary, you explicitly want a state imposed religion. It is the religion of secular humanism, the one that imposes values under the clever expedient of claiming them to be "neutral", when of course instead they involve such radical religious fundamentalist delusions as requiring the forced indoctrination of innocent children in homosexualist propaganda. The Catholics, along with all other people of good will, intend to fight and defeat you. Tally-ho!

  17. catholicdad
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    Jimbob': perhaps your priest would care to give next week's sermon on the subject of your hate-dripping post found here:Jimbob60Posted August 16, 2011 at 6:16 pm | PermalinkDiaz and Gallagher. Whose a bigger pr*ck? The spic or the mick? I think the operative word in your case, Jimbob, is one that begins with an "h"....

  18. Jimbob60
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    Catholicdad. Why do you refuse to see the issue as a human issue - an issue of equality for those born gay? People are born gay everyday. I have lived in several countries in the world representing different cultures and in all of the places I have met other people who were born gay. Take a close look at the constitution of this great land of ours. That piece of paper guarantees equality for all. I refrain from meat on Fridays during Lent and I choose to refrain from alcohol during Lent. I would never expect others to do the same so that I could practice my religion. I once worked with an observant Jew who kept kosher and observed the Sabbath. He did not expect the same of me. When I see responses like yours that use terms like "forced indoctrination" and "homosexualist propaganda" I realize the level of ignorance there is out there. to make it worse, you use the term "catholic" in your title and hijack my religion and the teachings of Christ. Christ told us not to call anyone "renegade". I was told an updated version of that line would be to not call anyone "queer". Stop with the name calling. Has your life been effected a single iota since the historic NYS Senate vote of almost 8 weeks ago? No, it has not.

  19. catholicdad
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Jimbob: The issue is not equality, since everyone is equally free to marry, or not to marry. The issue instead is one of imposing a secular humanist- and demonstrably insane- system of values which denies the biological truth that our species is constituted in two genders, and marriage is the unique union of those two genders. There is no common ground here, Jimbob. Either the truth will triumph, or the secular humanist nightmare will proceed to its logical conclusion; that is, the point where its insanity imposes upon parents the unshirkable obligation to defend their children from indoctrination in state-religion mandated evil. That is when things will get interesting.

  20. Jimbob60
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    catholicdad. Have you know sense of humor? I am of Irish parentage and can use the term "mick". There is no hate in a play on words. There is hate in trying to deny people happiness and equality.

  21. Jimbob60
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    The truth is that people are born gay. Some may misinterpret Christ's words and say that such people should effectively seek a lobotomy and be banished from society. For the most part saner minds have prevailed and gay people are free to live their lives. As a dad, what would you do should you have a child who is born gay?

  22. catholicdad
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    Whether one is born angry, or proud, or murderous, or noble, or happy, or sad, or rich, or poor, or white, or black, or gay, or whether one is born possessed of a potential for Himalayan appetite for the opposite sex, or the same sex, or beasts, or vegetables, is of no import at all. Marriage is the union of the two genders of our species, always has been, always will be, and even a state-imposed secular humanist religion can never change that- it can only sow the seeds of societal upheaval, until such time as sanity prevails.

  23. catholicdad
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Jimbob: No hate in "mick and sp*c", you say? I am sure your priest must be very proud of having formed such a one as you.

    The "h" word does;t begin to do you justice, Jimbob.

  24. catholicdad
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    Jimbob insists that gays are "born that way". Of course there is no evidence at all for this, but let us proceed as if there were. So, then, is the teenager who desires to copulate with every female he sees "born that way". This does not, of course, constitute an argument for polygamy. Marriage is what it is, regardless of the poignant insistence on the part of some that hormones trump reason, logic, and the common good.

  25. Jimbob60
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    Homosexuality is an orientation, an inate trait. You are confusing an orientation with behavior. No one is born to be polygamous. With my orientation, I am not attracted to women and could not have long term relationship with a woman. The whole issue of equality is to take into account orientation and inate characteristics. We have laws against incest. Applied equally, such laws would mean that a father and son could not marry just as a mother and son cannot or that 2 1st cousins of the same sex cannot marry just as 2 1st cousins of the opposite sex cannot. Equality is the issue. As for nature, for those born gay, a same sex relationship is perfectly normal. I have many gay friends who are living in long term committed relationships. Some have children through surrogacy. The issue of equality is a human issue. You refuse to see it as such. You speak in terms of agendas and indoctrination. Please see it as an issue of love and commitment. "Love one another as I have loved you" - be the other a Canaanite, a Samaritan, some one of a different social standing or different sexual orientation. See the joy expressed by all of those who married in NYS on 24 July and have married since.

  26. catholicdad
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    No, Jimbob, you are confusing a behavior with a right. As a matter of marriage law, your orientation is a matter of perfect indifference. You may perhaps not wish to marry, given your orientation. That is well for you then. On the other hand, should you insist that the rest of us are somehow required to redefine humanity's most ancient and vital institution so as to accommodate your orientation, we say: never.

  27. Mary Ann
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    Jimbob- so someone who says they had previously been attracted to people of the same sex but now are not are lying? What if they just have a different experience than you?
    Truth is, we *don't* know if people are 'born that way'. We do know that some people change, why doubt them?
    I think it's better to just love all people without necessarily agreeing with their behavior or changing definition of marriage to accommodate their desires.

  28. Louis E.
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    Jimbob,neither homosexual orientation nor anything else offers the slightest excuse for homosexual activity,and for that activity to take place within a committed relationship only compounds the error it constitutes.The species having two sexes makes the opposite-sex sexual relationship THE ONLY norm.There is no excuse for the claim of "equality" between right and wrong behaviors.The state has a responsibility to steer all citizens away from same-sex and toward opposite-sex relationships.

  29. Jimbob60
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

    Louis E. People are born gay. Accept it. Same sex relationships are perfectly normal for those born gay. The state has a responsibility to unsure equality.

  30. Badger
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

    Catholicdad you accuse Jimbob60 of "explicitly rejecting the teaching of the church." Actually Catholics have a long and proud history of rejecting the teachings and pronouncements of the church's leaders, which is not btw the same as rejecting the teachings of Jesus. And the do so because the church leaders are often misguided and wrong. As a catholic whose grandparents came from Lithuania, I know very well what they thought about the leaders of the catholic church there who first conspired with the nazis and then with the Russian communists to help supress a whole country. My catholic family fully support gay relationships and believe them to be entirely compatible with the message of the Bible.

  31. Jimbob60
    Posted August 19, 2011 at 12:03 am | Permalink

    Thank you Badger. Note that not all in the Church teach that we should treat gays as 2nd class citizens. I have been fortunate to have met many clergy members who welcome those born gay to the Church. I

  32. John Noe
    Posted August 19, 2011 at 1:00 am | Permalink

    This Jimbob60 keeps on harping the same lie over and over again. That one is born a homosexual. Keep in mind anyone making such a boast has to present solid, irrefutable scientific evidence to state this. The burdon of proof is on them not us.

    Fact: The homosexuals have not one shred of micro-biological scientific evidence that one is born with a homosexual gene. In fact it is bilogically impossible and here is why.
    Any so called DNA gene that one is born with is passed on only be reprodcution. If you do not reproduce then your genes die with you when you die. Think about it. Homosexuals do not reproduce. Therefore they never pass on those so called genes. Simple science should tell you that this is impossible.

  33. Louis E.
    Posted August 19, 2011 at 1:22 am | Permalink

    Same-sex relationships are,and MUST be treated as,second-class relationships.That does not mean that those guilty of claiming the worthless "being gay" defense for them are "second-class citizens",any more than I am because my driver's license requires that I wear lenses correcting my inferior vision to the only kind anyone SHOULD have in order to be allowed to drive,rather than affirming my "equal right" to "see differently" and providing me separate roads with large-type signs.
    The state has a responsibility to BAN "equality" between right and wrong,and for sexual relationships,same-sex = WRONG.

  34. catholicdad
    Posted August 19, 2011 at 4:35 am | Permalink

    In the never never land of Badger and Jimbob, the true mark of Catholicism is rejection of the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is no surprise that they have similar notions concerning the definition of marriage.

  35. Badger
    Posted August 19, 2011 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    Catholicdad you have every right to believe your version of the message of the gospels. However jimbob, me and many, many other Catholics also have a constitutional right to freedom of religion and to express our deeply held beliefs. Personally, reading your posts, I do not believe that you have truly discovered the message of Jesus and I feel sorry for you. However I fully support your right to follow a belief that is different to that of many other catholics.

  36. Louis E.
    Posted August 19, 2011 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    Badger,that some who claim the label of Catholic dissent from the teachings that they have to believe to be qualified for that label is eerily analogous to those who claim as marriages relationships not meeting the fundamental qualification (inclusion of partners of opposite sexes) to be marriages.You misrepresent Catholicism if you claim it does not condemn your position,just as it would misrepresent the Metropolitan Community Churches to claim that they had any objection to same-sex sex.

  37. John Noe
    Posted August 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    After reading so many of CatholicDads posts I have come to understand that he has a deep understanding of Jesus and of the message of the Gospels. His posts truly speak that he is a true follower of Jesus.

  38. Badger
    Posted August 19, 2011 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

    If I dissent from the teachings and behaviour of some of the leaders of the Catholic chuch, then I am in good company because catholicism has always been a "grass-"roots" religion. My family dissented against the leaders of the Catholic church who collabarated with the nazis during the 2nd world world. Copernicus was excoumminicated from the catholic chuch for postulating that the earth was not the centre of the universe in defiance of the teachings of the Catholic church, a grave error which the church only finally admitted was a mistake 1 year ago.

  39. Louis E.
    Posted August 20, 2011 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    Copernicus died a priest in good standing,though he delayed the publication of his book until he was dying in order to avoid trouble.But the whole point of religion is to defend a set of supposedly inalterable commandments of supposedly divine religion...the minute you treat things as up to your "grass roots" you expose your religion as a fraud.The rebel who is no hypocrite must LEAVE a church,whether he or it is wrong.

  40. Badger
    Posted August 20, 2011 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

    And there are just 10 of these commandments none of which refer to same sex marriage or homosexuality. Jesus, was the only person who couid and did expand upon these and I shall put in quotes for you the total sum of what he said on the subject of homesexuality or gay relationships; " ."

  41. Louis E.
    Posted August 20, 2011 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

    The 10 Commandments are not the entire list of behavioral requirements declared by the Catholic Magisterium or the authorities of any other "Bible" faith.If you think that no expansion upon those commandments (or the Noahide laws) was possible,you are extremely Protestant in your attitude toward the authority one must feel divinely commanded to obey in order to qualify as Catholic.

  42. badger
    Posted August 20, 2011 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

    John Noe: your post 32 is misinformed nonsense and you clearly have no training in biology or psychology. I do. No single gene has been identified that is responsible for sexual orientation (gay or straight). Neither has a single gene been identified that is responsible for skin colour or being left handed. Sexual orientation, "handedness" and skin colour are what geneticists, biologists and psychologists term as a "phenotype" i.e. an inherent characteristic of humans, whose properties vary among individuals and are deeply rooted in biology. Skin colour is an example of a physical phenotype and "handedness" (i.e. being left handed, right handed or ambidextrous) and sexual orientation are examples of behavioral phenotypes. There have been countless studies and quantitative data collected over the last 20 years which show that genes play a major role in sexual orientation. By contrast factors such as parenting, education or listening to songs by Lady Gaga have little if anything to do with sexual orientation. The hereditary influences are borne out by studies of twins, which is where a lot of our information about phenotypes comes from. Studies of monozygotic (identical) twins show that when one twin is gay the frequencies of the other twin being gay increases by several multiples and some studies have shown a 50% statistical probability of the other twin being gay, a much higher frequency than is observed in the population as a whole. Sexual orientation is not a choice. However, it is complex with many genes contributing to the phenotype.

  43. badger
    Posted August 20, 2011 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

    Louis E I said quite clearly in my post that Jesus DID expand upon and extend the requirements of the ten commandments, contrary to what you assert. However, I also told you what He specifically said about gay relatonships. Absolutely nothing.

  44. 2020
    Posted August 21, 2011 at 12:11 am | Permalink

    I love it when angry homosexuals cherry-pick many parts of scripture that suit their agenda but that seemingly goes hand in hand with what many gay apologists are doing these days.
    Jesus never said anything regarding homosexuality so that must make it okay, right?
    Not if you consider the facts.
    Jesus also never said anything about rape, incest or domestic violence. Are those things okay, too?
    There are many teachings and deeds of Christ that are not included in the Gospel accounts, as John writes in John 21:25.
    Christ did say that God created people “in the beginning” as male and female, and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman joined together as “one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9) Nothing whatsoever else is said about any other type of union.
    When Jesus discussed sexual morality, Christ had a very high standard, clearly affirming long-standing Jewish law. He told the woman caught in adultery to “Go and sin no more.” John 8:11. Jesus warned people not only that the act of adultery was wrong, but even adulterous thoughts. Matthew 5:28
    And he shamed the woman at the well John 4:18 by pointing out to her that he knew she was living with a man who was not her husband.
    Finally, the apostles, who were taught by Christ, clearly understood that homosexuality was a sin as it has always been. So when you read the lie that, “Jesus said nothing about homosexuality,” you should know now that the person saying that really has never understood Scripture beyond the usual liberal theological spin.

  45. Louis E.
    Posted August 21, 2011 at 1:17 am | Permalink

    It is irrelevant whether or not sexual orientation is a offers no excuse for same-sex sexual activity,which IS a choice.The Catholic religion involves believing teachings of that church's authority are divinely inspired,not just the words of Jesus.And certainly it has spoken clearly against same-sex sex.

  46. Badger
    Posted August 21, 2011 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    When you talk about phenotypes it makes no sense and there is no reason to separate the identity from the orientation. People who are born left handed use their left hand. they could be forced to become right handed but there is no logical reason as to why we should coerce them in that way.

  47. John Noe
    Posted August 21, 2011 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    Badger says to me:

    John Noe: your post 32 is misinformed nonsense

    However he does not have one shred of evidence where he can debunk what I said. So called genes are only passed on through human reproduction. Since homosexuals do not reproduce the gene cannot passed on. If there was a gene it would have gone away by now.
    He uses the skin color analogy. However two people of the same skin color do not have a baby of a different skin color. So if one group of people of a certain skin color stopped reproducing then that skin color would have vanished by now.
    Again this Badger guy cannot refute this obvious fact.

    Badger says:

    No single gene has been identified that is responsible for sexual orientation.
    Oh so there is no scientific proof that you are born that way. The homosexuals keep on promoting the same old lie that they are born that way and that it is not a choice. No credible scientific proof.
    They are pulling a con job on the country. Making this lie and seeing how many can fall for it.

  48. Louis E.
    Posted August 21, 2011 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

    Badger,the existence of two sexes in a species has necessary implications for what kind of sexual relationship is appropriate for individuals of that species that the existence of two hands does not.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.