The group has asked every 2012 GOP presidential hopeful to sign this pledge. The only other candidate so far who has also put ink to paper is Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.)
The pledge asks the candidates to vow that they will be faithful to their spouses and to the U.S. Constitution. Which is not the offensive and is actually understandable. Even though if the person wins he or would actually take an oath of office that will require them to pledge their allegiance to the constitution.
Now for the controversial and overly judgmental stuff. The pledge also outlaws “quickie divorce,” pornography, cohabitation and Islamic sharia law. It also says that homosexuality is a choice rather than a biological trait and that black children were better off during slavery then under the Obama administration. The document also warns that marriage is in crisis in our society and that homosexuality may have a negative impact on public health in America.
Felt that I needed to break all of this crazy down
1. No one should be overly concerned with their presidential candidates personal life views. Their views on porn, cohabitation or them having a quickie divorce does not effect their ability to govern. The questions should be "Can you balance a budget?" or "What's your foreign policy agenda?". Whether or not an unmarried couple that consist of consenting adults are living together is not the governments concerned.
2. We will never ever, ever live under Islamic sharia law under any circumstances. The perceived threat is just another political scare tactic. In the United States we have something called a constitution that would never allow such a thing.
3. The idea that homosexuality is choice and poses some kind of public health risk lets me know that they are not using any facts. First of all until there is any scientific evidence that a person's sexuality is chosen then you can not say it as a statement of fact. Secondly homosexuality poses no health risk to anyone. If you are thinking about HIV/AIDS then I just know that you are incredibly ignorant. A person's health as it relates to their sexuality only has to do with their behavior not their orientation. Anyone who is having unprotected sex and using dirty needles would be the ones that are dangerous to the health of other Americans.
4. Now I had to work up to my last point because I needed to be fully prepared to address the dumbest portion of this document. The idea that blacks were better off during slavery than under the Obama administration. The crazy thing is that this point was defended when controversy arise regarding the statement. According to the group blacks were more likely to be born into stable two parent homes during slavery. Where as now most black children are born into single parent homes.
This quite possibly maybe the dumbest thing that I have ever heard. Let me give Mrs Bachmann and others a short history lesson. A lot of those married black families killed their children at birth to avoid them having to live in slavery. If you think that anything that happens in today's society in the African American community even is remotely worse than slavery is insensitive and ridiculous. Nothing compares to being forced to work for free and being beaten everyday. Nothing compares to being labeled as property and having no rights as a human being. These children may have had both parents for a little while could be sold away from that loving family to never see them again. I could keep going into the horrors of slavery (which actually could get alot worse) but I think you get the point.
Bachmann, Santorum and the advocacy group have backed off the slavery portion of the pledge. These candidates are using short sighted politics and attempt to make a big impression in the Iowa caucus. These are two candidates who are serious threats to win the nomination but not electable candidates in the general election. They better say away from the bigot base.
Follow Me on Twitter