Michele Bachmann, You're An Idiot. Rick Santorum... You're Santorum.

Today I saw a post about Michele Bachmann's new Family Leader marriage pledge (PDF can be downloaded here -- it's good for a laugh and you want to go through the whole thing). Apparently it's drafted by some conservative organization in Iowa for candidates to sign. Bachmann and Santorum are the first two to put their Paul Reveres* to the page. I'll hit the highlights.

I have to point out that the first sentence cites "classical philosophers." Who were kind of known for loving some pederasty. Which consists of sexual relationships between old dudes and adolescent boys. But okay.


Bigots say: "anti-scientific bias which holds, in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bi...as which holds, against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health."

I say: What's wrong with this argument? Hmm.

1. If we want to go with empirical proof on genetic determination, results would be... inconclusive. But if we just want to go with empirical, since she loves that word, then yes, actually, many with "non-heterosexual inclinations" certainly didn't ask for them.

2. Still waiting on the logic behind choosing to be gay in a world populated and, unfortunately, often ruled by the likes of Michele Bachmann.

3. "Homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general" -- how the heck does homosexuality automatically qualify as promiscuity? Oh wait, it doesn't. Gay people aren't actually less human than their straight peers, and therefore have that whole monogamy thing sometimes too. EMPIRICALLY, plenty of homosexual couples have long-term monogamous relationships.

4. If we are using this premise that "Faithful monogamy is at the very heart of a designed and purposeful order" -- well, turns out gays can actually fit into that picture after all.

Bigots say: "I 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:

• 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."

I say: First, we fail to qualify how exactly, and empirically of course, polygamy and such is the same as a marriage between two adults who happen to be of the same sex. Then we offers all of these benefits of marriage that gays would inherently be deprived of because they're not allowed to marry in the first place. That's not very nice, is it?

Bigots add to this list: "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."

I say:  ...funny, since that means we logically also can't undermine law-abiding American citizens for accepting homosexual monogamy? Otherwise we'd be imposing part of the population's religious beliefs on the entire nation's political freedoms... and that can't be right! After all, the pledge also includes "Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution." Which caused me to raise an eyebrow at "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" because, well, why is a religious denomination's definition the end-all, be-all for all of America?

This pledge speaks to the consuming, overwhelming hypocrisy of conservatives in America. When it's convenient, they stomp and swear about their individual rights; when you want to take their guns or their prayers. And don't get me wrong, I'm all for letting responsible individuals buy their own guns and commit to their own religions. But I don't conveniently cut these rights off past the point where I personally need them. I don't currently own a gun, but I have no issue with others buying them. I don't currently have a desire to marry my (non-existent) same-sex lover; but millions of people do. So let them.

As much as these conservatives will say, "Marriage is for one-man, one-woman, monogamously. Infidelity is as unacceptable as all this other stuff," they're not walking the walk. If they were, they'd be trying to outlaw divorce just as fiercely as gay marriage.

You may think that's ridiculous. But that's the point. And fanaticism generally is pretty incredible. But see, these conservatives, the Bachmanns and the Santorums, make noise about how awful adultery is, but at the end of the day they're supporting the rights of straight people to get married and do whatever the heck they want in that marriage, whereas two people in a truly committed, loving relationship can be barred from that sort of legally recognized monogamous relationship because, what, they're gay? They can say God doesn't like gays, but he also doesn't care much for liars or hypocrites.

Americans need to stand up to the far right and their "marriage protection" and their condescension toward the rest of us and tell them: Empirically, this is not okay.

*Yes, I know, it's John Hancock. But in honor of Michelle Bachmann I figured I should be historically inaccurate.

UPDATE: Governor Gary Johnson, my current personal favorite GOP candidate, posted this response to the pledge: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gary-johnson-calls-family-leader-pledge-offensive-and-unrepublican.
He's one of the few to comment on how awful the whole thing is.