Bachmann Signs Pledge for Ban on Porn and Same-Sex Marriage

Nuttier than a fruitcake.

I am just so thankful that I don’t ‘live in Iowa”….I would be totally embarrassed to say I did. What a bunch of ‘out of touch’ loons. And this is the MAIN type of mentality this idiot appeals to.

No porn? First they will have to define porn in the amendment, because the courts say the Constitution doesn’t do that now. Then they will have to develop a time machine to go back and prevent invention of the Internet.

Child porn in the US is ALREADY banned so that claim makes no sense.

People like the ill-informed Bachmann are always talking about “taking the country back.” Now we know what she means, take us back to 1950.

Haha good luck with that, Michele! Now release a definition of “porn”…that would be great entertainment. GOP fruitcakes.

This article makes a brazenly false statement in saying the pledge “calls for a ban on all pornography.” The sole item in the pledge that mentions porn prescribes no specific remedy, but says exactly this, and no more:
“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.”
Russell Goldman could have quoted this, but instead chose to lie. He should be fired for unethical practice.

Real “small government” values, telling people what they can and cannot do and watch!

I welcome all Republicans to sign a pornography ban. Please do it. Lose that male 18-49 demo.
One thing though, who decides what’s pornographic? You? Me? Michele Bachmann? Her husband? You know, the one that has everyone’s gaydar buzzing like mad?
Porn ban, yeah, let’s run on that, with the economy in the tank, tax cuts destroying the revenue stream, giveaways to big oil and the corn contingent there in Iowa …
Morons.

Typo: What ban on all pornography???
Human protections for children and women injured by human [trafficking] and the sex industry are not a ban on all porn. What a crock a serious reporter could write this. Did you read it or just decide you want to hurt Bachmann?

I think that the declaration is too strongly stated on some points and disgree with other points, but I think it is an important and valid statement against same-sex marriage. A good thing that politicians explicitely take sides like that.

Muslims Believe Rightfully so That Americans Low Morality Ruins Their Women And children. I Disagree With Most Of Their Beliefs –But On Morality They Have a Good Case.

Americans have lost all their Moral Values. Now Only Satin Can Win the White House—The Proof Is setting In The White House Now.

how else can you protect women and children from pornography? by banning it. regulating pornography would not protect women and children. i suppose it would make sense if we don’t allow women and children to see pornography….thus protecting them….but only allowing men to have porn is sexist don’t you think?

An adult should be able to marry ANY consenting adults. Don’t support bigotry and don’t throw others under the bus. There’s nothing wrong with same-sex, polyamorous, interracial, or consanguineous marriages.

Gee, why no link to the document in question? Guess the “journalist” just “forgot”.

When I hear the names Santorum mentioned together with Bachmann, all I can envision is frothy fruitcake.

Man, what IS IT with Christians not only hating gay marriage, but porno as well?
I’m 23, live at home, have very religious parents, every once in a while they will find magazines or unsavory internet history and it still shocks them. They still think I need help/ have an addiction to it.
Bottom line: it’s not hurting anyone. It’s MY BUSINESS! I dare any Christian who makes such claims to read Ezekiel 23 about the two harlot sisters. Cuz, y’know, that’s good family values right there!

that was a skilled way to end her political career, I am curious to know more of the whole “pledge” thing and who or how it was initially offered to Michele Bachmann …if it was designed by an Obama/Clinton supporter or themselves in order to undermine her favor and gain Obama support-because after reading the pledge, I thought of Oprah and Obama, then Bachmann losing support. Obama won the last election by process of elimination, and he ran a anti-war campaign to control liberals. Had he not expanded the war to Afghanistan, hired Clinton and Biden whom incidentally voted (“yes” we can) to invade Iraq, now still spending 2 billion a WEEK oversea’s while state and federal programs are facing more cuts, arts programs are losing funding and Obama also attacked Libya-I’d say then Obama is a real winner, and deserves the noble peace prize. In the end he’s a decoy candidate- the war machine got what they wanted and Bachmann is a troll and set up. Couldn’t help but wonder if after she is constantly being told how gorgeous she is in blog posts and by others in public- if she wants them to see her as untouchable sexually-but insatiable and controlling of others sexual fantasy or thoughts as porn does nothing but fulfill this. Barf to Obama and this Republican whack job who I would rather see making out with Oprah in a sensationalized over publicized upcoming episode on her (Oprah’s) failing cable channel- to help boost poor ratings.
Did I mention Bill (Monica didnt play with my dog)Clinton de-regulated the banks and our economy then collapsed years following, or that Bill Clinton also turned radio stations into a joke after removing radio anti-trust laws? Now we have the same song and dance routine on repeat incidently the music business has also COLLAPSED. Liberals are an abused and used bunch of gullible people, easily toyed with. REVOLT!
hey did anybody notice a list of Republicans were once Democrats including Guiliani? So which is which-vote/register independent and ditch the game.

Bachmann is nuts. Pledges like these are image things and they in no way indicte any fact about the candidate’s real intentions except that they don’t see anything wrong with the content. In this case you can see tons wrong. It’s not the things you might agree with because it’s easy to get agreement on some things (even if the ideas are impossible to implement or actually fantasy), but it’s the things that are literally off the wall that should warn you as to her intentions.

To address the point everyone seems to be most in arms about, the pornography thing, it does in fact say all pornography.
“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.”
By saying we want to protect our children from all forms of pornography we are saying that we want to protect them not just from child porn, but from daddy’s porn stash, and from the internet, and everything. It does not say child pornography, it says all porn. So yes, the author of the article was correct in quoting it as he did because it is saying all forms. However, it will be very interesting to see what Mr. Flint has to say about all of this :)

This is histarical, shes trying to relate polygamy and gay marriage? seriously now…I love how gay marriage requires two or more people to make a “couple”. And the ban on pornography dispute will never go through, she is an idiot…

She’s Nuttier than a Fruitcake and her husband is Fruitier than a Nutcake.

CND FOX, what are you talking about??? We can see you are just another mad President Obama got elected person. I have never seen or heard President Obama use the race card. You are the one who has brought it up so maybe you are actually the racist. LOL.

I’m conservative, and I think porn shouldn’t be a political issue. If you don’t want porn, don’t go after it on the websites. It’s none of anyone’s business what adults watch. Being a busy-body is what gives conservatives a bad name and takes away from issues of personal responsibilty, jobs, and taxes. Shame on Bachman for inserting this into the forum when it’s the econonmy stupid.

Michele Bachmann probably has more in common with the Taliban–the most ardent believers of Shari’a Law than any other presidential candidate.

Hopefully no one else is stupid enough to sign this…
This would be a disgusting breach against rights as well… Porn? A lot of people enjoy that… If meaning child porn… that’s already banned basically. If you’re caught with child porn then that’s no good, people shouldn’t have it anyway.
Same sex marriage? Do our poor brothers and sisters in the community really need more grief? Let them be!
I couldn’t bare to read much further.

Weird… She’s a candidate that has been adamant about small government and states’ rights, but seems to contradict that platform by telling state’s what to do… Smaller government by increasing federal interference… I really shouldn’t be surprised; she’s a politician; they all pander, contradict themselves, lie, and make promises that they don’t intend on keeping.

Oh and by the way,…just went back for the transcripts of her statement….she did make the statement “and ALL forms of pornography and prostitution”…now, whether or not in context….it can be construed a number of ways…for her or anyone else…regardless of her views on porn…the whole, we are all going to act like Christian conservatives, and live like that, whether we like it or not, is actually anti-American. It hasn’t worked before, and it won’t work this time…she can’t even go back and change her strategy…she already screwed that up…..love it!!!!!

She talks out of both sides of her mouth and when was she appointed God. Usually these loud mouth moralists end up involved in a scandal of their own sooner or later.

What part of “…all forms of pornography…” does not mean not a ban on all forms of pornography? Perhaps you should read the pledge yourself?

We don’t need a constitutional amendment for any of this. Human trafficking is already illegal, viewing adult porn is a personal choice I believe covered by the right to free speech, and homosexuals must — must — be allowed to marry and enjoy all the benefits of marriage allowed to individuals in heterosexual marriages. Bachmann seems to be a bigot and wannabe moral dictator of the worst, and most hypocritical, description. She cheerily signs the pledge as she declares for states rights to decide on moral issues. She can’t even be true to her own moral views if it gets in the way of winning. And by the way, morality has no business being legislated – ever.

I liked her Fiscal policy. But banning anything is unamerican. Shes done. NEXT up for the stupid party!

Please don’t ban porn. It is the only American industry that has yet to be outsourced. I say NO to chinese porn filmed in the province of Shanghai.

Maybe she can take us a little further than mere banning of porn. Let’s go for stoning adulterers. After all, isn’t adultery condemned in the Bible, too? Oh, I realize many of her own party would be a little nervous over that one. And tell me how same-sex marriage is a threat to our traditional marriage model any more than the affairs have become so commonplace. The woman is an idiot.

Many of her backers, the rapist pediophile right wing nutcase catholic priests are going to be very upset about this. She may lose some of her base.
The other idiots that back her, the evangelicals won’t be around after Oct 21 when their king Harold Camping is going to take all of them away to meet the man in the sky.and give them their new paloace rooms right next to Allah’s Hotel where the Talibam suicide bombers are staying with thei many virgins.

Actually, the post as read does ban all pornography – in fact, it says ‘all pornography’ right in the pledge. It doesn’t just say that women and children should be protected from forcibly BEING in porn (which no sane human can argue with) – it also says that they should be protected FROM ALL porn. That means banning it. Using women and children as an excuse to impose a moral stricture upon society is the oldest trick in the book.

In what way does a ban on “all forms of pornography” not ban all pornography? Please explain…..

Although women are no less capable of conducting the office and duties of the President, it won’t happen in my life time precisely because of women like Bachmann and Palin. It’s a one two punch of stupid and crazy, and I’m afraid the damage to the female image in national politics will take a generation to repair.

I’d like to ban Christianity and clothing.

What an animal! Only a republican would come out with something like that, they will do and say anything to get the right wing nuts to vote for them! Don’t they know that there are 23 countries that have full gay marriage or full civil unions? Does this country have to be the last country to give gay marriage to us? I’m legal married in Canada!

Since Bachmann is an attorney, as well as Congresswomen will she please draft a bill which defines “Pornography”? By the way there are passages in the Bible, which I deem to be pornographic. If that is the case, will she work to censor the Bible? One person’s pornography is another person’s eroticism.

To those trying to say this does not call for a ban on porn and instead calls for protection against something illegal or nefarious, you are wrong. Period. This pledge does call for a protection from porn, and you can see that when you remove the clutter.
“Humane protection of women and … children – from … all forms of pornography … other types of coercion or stolen innocence.”
The claim here is that pornography is harmful for the participants, mostly adult women. This pledge calls for protecting women from being enticed into participating in pornography.
So yes, a ban on porn.

Sadly, the pledge contains clauses too long for some illterates:
“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.”
Parsing this to the subject matter at hand (harhar), this is what we have:
“Humane protection of women … from … all forms of pornography …”
Is this a “ban”. The word “ban” is not here. However, given that this is a political platform to be pushed with legislative changes (aka “laws”) and constitutional amendments, it is not unreasonable to use the word “ban” (defined as “Officially or legally prohibit”).
Note that would BAN women from making pornagraphy (hello unemployment). Two dudes can still make a porno ($$$) for Marcus Bachmann and Rick Perry to watch.