Candidates signing the "Marriage Vow"

Given all the controversy over Michele Bachmann's signing of the "Marriage Vow," I thought that it might be useful to actually read the original text.

 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.

The Washington Post for example claims:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is the first presidential candidate to sign a pledge written by a socially- conservative advocacy group in Iowa that, among other things, endorses the view that homosexuality is a choice rather than a biological trait. . . .

Yet, I can't find anything in the pledge that makes that claim. But take this statement in the accompanying document: "No peer-reviewed empirical science or rational demonstration has ever definitively proven, nor even has shown an overwhelming probability, that homosexual preference or behavior is irresistible as a function of genetic determinism or other forms of fatalism." But it is a long way from saying that existing evidence doesn't prove something and saying that there is no relationship. In any case, I think that the key point here is "irresistible" and you could even have a genetic predisposition towards something, even a strong disposition, but that is not the same as saying that it is "irresistible."



Blogger Sevesteen said...

"Family Values" is no different than "Sensible Gun Restrictions". The government should not be in our bedrooms regardless of excuses, and this pledge is carefully worded but still homophobic.

7/10/2011 1:02 PM  
Blogger John Lott said...

OK, Sevesteen, please explain to me what in this vow allows government intervention that restricts the bedroom activities of homosexuals? Like you, I would also oppose that intervention and if such intervention is in the vow, I would greatly appreciate understanding it. Thank you.

7/10/2011 6:04 PM  
Blogger Sevesteen said...

I said 'should not be in our bedrooms regardless of excuses', not 'in the bedrooms of homosexuals'. Big, big difference. There is no good reason for the government to get that deeply into the business of consenting adults, even if it is for things you or I might find icky.

This doesn't quite come out and say 'homosexuals are bad'--but neither does the Brady Campaign often come out and say 'we want to ban most guns to most people'.

The pledge says that married people have a much better life, but those benefits should be denied to gays and lesbians, or at least withheld until they go straight.

Children raised by two loving, caring parents do better than children raised by a single indifferent parent--but from what I've seen, the orientation of the couple doesn't affect the well-being of the children.

"humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy"--so if a child is illegitimate, they don't deserve the same protection? Men don't deserve the same protections as women? And why the obfuscated language here and throughout?

Lumping human trafficking, infanticide and sexual slavery with promiscuity and porn? Why only objecting to sexual slavery, why not other forms of slavery?

Lumping women in with children?

Maybe this is just poorly written, but it sounds like only straight men should have a complete set of rights, women should be protected whether they want it or not, and gays should be tolerated at best, certainly not given equal rights.

We need to spend far less time worrying about other people's sex lives and domestic arrangements.

7/10/2011 9:20 PM  
Blogger John Lott said...

Dear Sevesteen:
I guess that I still don't really see what in this vow involves regulating what goes on inside anyone's bedroom. The only thing that it says about homosexuals regards marriage, and it doesn't say that civil unions should be opposed nor does it in anyway stop people from writing whatever contracts that they want, which can give people the same rights as married people in pretty much every way.
The point of my piece wasn't that I would have signed the vow, but simply that the media was wildly distorting what was in the vow. I don't understand the homophobic reference you make, unless you define those who support marriage between a man and a woman as homophobic. Surely, people can have that position without being homophobic, right? Thanks for the comments.

7/10/2011 11:34 PM  
Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

Cheese and Rice! Equal Protection under the Law means that laws are applied equally to all.

"Maybe this is just poorly written, but it sounds like only straight men should have a complete set of rights, women should be protected whether they want it or not, and gays should be tolerated at best, certainly not given equal rights."

For the record, straight men and gay men have the exact same rights. I don't have a right to marry my dog, but I can prove beyond any doubt that said dog will remain faithfull and true to I until the day I, or my dog dies. This, in and of itself is not an excuse for I to claim discrimination based upon the fact that I cannot marry my dog. Hmmmmmm, perhaps my dog can file suit based upon his/her need to enjoy the rights of a married couple.

A law that states that only men can marry women, and women can only marry men is a valid law only if it applies to all as enumerated in the 14th Amendment. Anti sodomy laws are going by the wayside, and what are left are simply ignored, so I fail to see the argument that the Government is in any way in our bedrooms.

Homophobia is simply human nature. Some folks hate I, because of my skin color, religious preference or lack of, clothing that I wear, sexual preference, or the wrong perception of who I truly am. This is not an excuse for I, nor any other to petition the government for extra special rights that do not apply to others!


7/11/2011 3:36 PM  
Blogger Sevesteen said...

Wow, the old tired "marrying my dog" argument.

The government portion of marriage is primarily a contract. Dogs can't enter contracts, while gays and lesbians can. The spiritual part of marriage should be left to the churches and the couple involved.

Racism is human nature, doesn't mean the government should enforce it. There was a time and place when miscegenation laws affected all equally too.

And the equal protection problems in this pledge also applies to women--banning them from voluntarily serving in forward combat roles, or apparently wherever there is the slightest risk of capture.

7/12/2011 11:44 AM  
Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

Sevesteen: If it is contract law that is the problem, then I suggest you find a way to turn the rules against those who wrote said rules.

Our government has been enforcing racism since this country was founded, and still does to this day. If you fail to believe that, perhaps you should look up Sotomayor's record on her reliance of post reconstruction SCOTUS cases that led to the Jim Crow Laws.

"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."

Hypocrisy? I see above a statement by a woman, asking that women be protected, and having an method by which violaters would be punished.

You, Sevesteen, ask for extra special rights for GLBT folks while being critical of another because she is asking for the saftey of her sisters?


7/13/2011 11:13 AM  
Blogger Sevesteen said...

I don't see 'marry who you want to' or 'serve your country' as an extra special right.

If instead of barrel length the NFA had defined a minimum length of stock, suitable for an 'average' man and penalized short stocks--Or required handguns to have the same grip dimensions as the Beretta M9--would women have equal gun rights because they have rights to the very same guns as men do?

7/16/2011 10:31 AM  
Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

Serving one's country is not an extra special right. That I concur with. However, as the law is written regarding marriage, it is applied to all equally.

As to firearms, grip width is limited by the size of the ammo itself. Also, weapons can be modded to be more suitable for smaller folks too. Yes, women do have equal rights to carry.

7/18/2011 1:15 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home