In a scurrilous hit piece with the headline, “Bachmann marriage vow draws ire over slavery,” Democratic Party propagandist Kevin Diaz does his sleazy best to contort, pervert, twist, and stretch beyond the bounds of imagination a simple pro-marriage pledge signed by Rep. Michele Bachmann. Diaz draws on the most absurd sources, completely mischaracterizes the vow, and in turn misquotes Bachmann to create a work of fiction that attempts to Palinize the conservative Republican presidential candidate. Such ridiculous smearing should be exposed for the complete and utter fabrication it truly is. Startribune.com, July 8, 2011.
Bachmann signed a pledge to support the traditional values of marriage and a conservative view of the institution. This vow contained some strident language and boldly asserted specific moral values as ascribed to conventional heterosexual views of the institution of marriage. When you actually read the vow you understand it is certainly a very conservative stance, but not a crazy or fringe set of beliefs.
Diaz explains the vow as being controversial because, “The pledge, which she is the only presidential candidate to sign so far, also commits her to banning porn and same-sex marriage. Not a surprise.” First of all, our far left progressive/socialist president also campaigned on keeping marriage legal only between a man and a woman. Is President Obama now a dangerous rightwing “flake” as Diaz suggests Bachmann is? Does President Obama’s support of traditional marriage suddenly expose him to the kind of vitriol as expelled by Thinkprogress who scandalized this vow?
Second, what is this about banning porn? Diaz throws this little dig in but what does the ‘vow’ say about pornography? He manages to distort this little segment into a ban on his possible ‘Girls Gone Wild’ addiction.
“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.”
What hateful rhetoric.
Humane protection of women and children from abuse, sexual slavery and ‘all forms of pornography and prostitution’ suddenly becomes banning porn. What kind of porn does this freak view? Diaz has decided to take a perfectly reasonable stance against child pornography and exploitation of women and turned it into taking away his Playboy magazine. Wow. That is quite the logical leap, a leap that Diaz continues to take throughout this little sleazy romp through his Party-controlled brain.
“Michele Bachmann famously called America under President Obama a “nation of slaves,” is how Diaz begins his little story of horrors. This, of course, isn’t what she said at all. She was characterized like this following a Western Conservative Summit in Colorado;
“She made the comment in relation to a quote from Founding Father John Jay. "'We are determined to live free or not at all. And we are resolved that posterity shall never reproach us with having brought slaves into the world,'" Bachmann read to the crowd.
She then added, "We will talk a little bit about what has transpired in the last 18 months and would we count what has transpired into turning our country into a nation of slaves." Bachmann was speaking of being slaves to the state, a rhetoric reference as to us being economically controlled and manipulated by the government. She wasn’t speaking to actual ownership by the state and complete bodily control of our every single choice. That was the effect Jay was trying to convey and what Bachmann interpreted correctly.
Diaz knew better when he made his little dig about Bachmann referring to us as a ‘nation of slaves.’ We know this because the second reference to Bachmann’s quote of John Jay was from DIAZ HIMSELF. He wrote the qualifying statement about Bachmann’s reference to John Jay and Jay’s fear that too much government would have an enslaving effect on free people. “Bachmann’s ‘Nation of slaves’ comment draws plenty of notice,” by Eric Roper and KEVIN DIAZ, Star Tribune, July 12, 2010. Instead, Diaz drags out and completely reframes Bachmann’s reference to the founder’s quote and places it in a completely skewed context.
But the old camp follower of the Dear Leader isn’t done yet. He hasn’t finished twisting this vow into something sinister and malignant. He completely hacks the vow’s principles with this little string of slurs.
“It’s not just Bachmann who might have to own The Family Leader’s traditional marriage vow, which also calls for the rejection of Sharia Islam, the recognition that married people enjoy “better sex,” and that “robust childrearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.”
The vow has this statement regarding Sharia.
“Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.”
How is this a terrible rightwing philosophy? Suddenly, the Western respect of women as individual beings with their own thoughts and ideas is an assault on liberal thought? Is stoning gays and ghetto-izing Christians and Jews the new secular humanist viewpoint? Are we to believe Diaz’ little stringing together a bunch of phrases organized to distort their meaning a legitimate exercise in journalism and truth-telling?
Studies have shown married and committed couples do have more and better sex. Studies have also shown that committed parenting and two parent families are significantly more beneficial to children. Does that mean single people can’t have children? Of course not. Does this mean single mothers only rear homicidal maniacs? Ridiculous. What it does suggest is society certainly has a moral obligation to give children the best chance to thrive and if that means giving married, committed couples more legal support, then by all means do so.
All law is moral. If laws are supposed to promote good moral behavior, like raising healthy, productive children, then giving carrots to some is in society’s best interest. That doesn’t necessarily mean we beat everyone else with a stick. There is an unexpressed but underlying presumption by Diaz that if we support traditional marriage paradigms we are ‘hurting’ others.
Poppycock and bovine excrement. This is just a hackneyed attempt to throw mud and other brown materials at Bachmann because she dares to be A. conservative and B. a woman. These two identities cannot be commingled in the collectivist mind. Too many women just might start thinking for themselves.
Then, what kind of porn would Kevin Diaz enjoy.
Crossposted at Looktruenorth.com