Home » Online Only, Top Highlights » Michele Bachmann dodges questions on anti-gay stance

Michele Bachmann dodges questions on anti-gay stance

san diego gay magazine

Michele Bachmann//Phot Source: NY Daily News

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann appeared Sunday on several morning talk shows where she side-stepped questions about her attitude toward the gay community. Bachmann, who referred to homosexuality as “personal bondage” in a 2004 interview, refused to answer directly when hosts suggested that her anti-gay political stance is reflective of her prejudice against LGBT people.

The Minnesota Independent reports that during Bachmann’s appearance on Meet the Press, host David Gregory played a clip of the presidential hopeful’s famous quote where she stated, “Your involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage…personal enslavement…It’s a very sad life.” When asked to comment on the statement, Bachmann responded, “Well, I am running for the presidency of the United States. I’m not running to be anyone’s judge.”

Gregory then asked Bachmann how she expected the gay community to respond to her policies, which many consider to be highly judgmental. Rather than addressing the question, Bachmann redirected the conversation and spoke of her belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. “That’s what I stand for, but I ascribe honor and dignity to every person no matter what their background,” she said.

Bachmann also appeared on CNN’s State of the Union, where host Candy Crowly asked whether or not she intended to reinstate the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy if elected. While she noted her intent to consult with military commanders before making a decision, Bachmann revealed that she would most likely reinstate the ban on gays in the military.

During the interview, Bachmann also commented on the process by which states legalize gay marriage, stating that the people should have the ability to vote on such measures. She cited Iowa’s 2009 gay marriage legislation as an example, and accused the three judges who passed the law of acting as a “super legislature.” “That’s why people here in Iowa did not retain their three judges,” said Bachmann. “They were very offended that three judges substituted their opinions for the will of the people.”

In addition, Bachmann stated that, if elected, she plans to protect traditional marriage by appointing only those judges who vow to uphold the constitution and to protect the Defense of Marriage Act.

Short URL: http://lgbtweekly.com/?p=13893

Posted by on Aug 15, 2011. Filed under Online Only, Top Highlights. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

6 Comments for “Michele Bachmann dodges questions on anti-gay stance”

  1. It is counterproductive for the gay community to create a powerful enemy when Bachmann has no animus at all against gays. Her step-sister is lesbian. However, Bachmann is unalterably opposed to having unelected judges imposing their will on States.
    She also said she wouldn’t dismiss out of hand an openly gay or lesbian person as a member of a Bachmann administration, saying she would look for two things: Whether nominees would uphold the U.S. Constitution and whether they were competent.
    At the Ames Iowa debate, Congresswoman Bachmann remained the little lady with a spine of titanium, whose unshakable principles defended her against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. The hostile media has done its utmost to bring her down, but to no avail. She has emerged unscathed, smiling triumphantly, seemingly frail but in fact fearless, with an almost martial strength, so that she is now a match for all her political foes–on the Right as well as on the Left.

    • Holy crap, what is this post? Create a powerful enemy? How would you expect her to retaliate if she was somehow made into a “powerful enemy?” And if you believe she would, why would you think that she deserves to ever be in any position to do so? If she has no animus toward gays, then what’s all this nonsense her and her husband have been going on about for all of their professional lives? Unelected judges imposing their will upon the states? Do you actually understand what it is that judges do? You do understand that judges exist in this context to counter the irrational will of the mob, and simply interpret the state’s laws and constitution as they apply to a specific case, correct? It was a ruling on whether or not the State government had any legal or rational requirement to actively deny same sex unions…what is your reasoning, if you question this judgement?

    • I agree with you that creating an enemy is not a wise thing to do, I do not think recognizing one is harmful. When she states that she will reinstate discrimination against gay or lesbian troops, this is not a ‘judge’s’ discussion its hers. While she gives lip service to the leadership of the army, to get their thoughts on this policy, she says her mind is ‘probably’ made up. This is quoted. I wish people would stop holding the ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ media responsible for the answers YOUR chosen candidates give. She is NOT unscathed in my thoughts and I vote. I do not like my daughter hearing a woman tell her that she should be ‘submissive’ to her husband.

    • Spoken like a true biased, Right-Wing Tea-Bagger. Don’t try to hide your excuses with that old line, “some of my best friends are gay.” What a load of bull.

  2. The fact that her husband runs a clinic which is supposed to turn gay people straight is evidence enough that she is bat-shit insane.

  3. Her husband is gay, right?

Leave a Reply

Pride Card Deals


LGBT Weekly Digital Magazine

© 2018 LGBT Weekly. All Rights Reserved. Log in - Website by BluSkye Group