Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Gays are bullies, Bachmann says

Last week, upset about Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s veto of a bill that would have allowed those in the marriage industry to withhold (but only if they did so on religious grounds) their services from gay couples, Rep. Michele Bachmann made a plea for tolerance — of religious people.

During the recent CPAC conference, she returned to the subject in an interview with righty radio host Lars Larson. First of all, Bachmann said, the vetoed Arizona statute didn’t even mention gays or lesbians. It merely protected business owners from discrimination lawsuits if they deny their services to anyone, as long as they assert religious reasons. But “the gay community decided to make this their measure,” Bachmann said. Then she added:

The gay community, they have so bullied the American people, and they’ve so intimidated politicians.

Here’s the clip, via Right Wing Watch:

“There’s nothing about gays in there, but the gay community decided to make this their measure,” Bachmann said. “And the thing that I think is getting a little tiresome is the gay community have so bullied the American people and they have so intimidated politicians that politicians fear them and they think they get to dictate the agenda everywhere. – See more at:
“There’s nothing about gays in there, but the gay community decided to make this their measure,” Bachmann said. “And the thing that I think is getting a little tiresome is the gay community have so bullied the American people and they have so intimidated politicians that politicians fear them and they think they get to dictate the agenda everywhere. – See more at:

Comments (23)

  1. Submitted by Neal Rovick on 03/11/2014 - 11:06 am.

    The eternal victimhood of the right.

  2. Submitted by Bill O'Reilly on 03/11/2014 - 11:30 am.

    gay bullying

    “The gay community, they have so bullied the American people, and they’ve so intimidated politicians.”
    Michele fails to point out that maybe they are reacting to the decades old practice of gay bashing, bullying, and beatings endured by gays. So far I haven’t seen any politicians beaten to death because of their sexual preferences, or for that matter denied any privileges that are commonly enjoyed by the American public in general.

    • Submitted by william parkhill on 03/11/2014 - 07:20 pm.

      Gay Bullying

      My grandmother had a saying that I think applies with regards to Michelle Bachmann’s statement. “If you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say anything at all.” Don’t do anything ether.

      • Submitted by Max Weisberg on 03/12/2014 - 10:51 am.

        Gay Bullying

        Yes, you only have the right to express yourself as long as what you say fits into my pre-conceived idea of what is right or wrong. In other words, you may only speak if you agree with me.

  3. Submitted by Paul Rider on 03/11/2014 - 11:44 am.

    Right. Gays are bullies.

    C’mon Michelle. You are married to a man who tried to get gay people to change and become heterosexual, simply because he [you] think being gay is wrong. Trying to get people to change something fundamental about themselves and using coercion and the Bible to do so, and trying to enact legislation to discriminate against people… If that’s not bullying, I do not know what is!

    Give me a break!

  4. Submitted by John Roach on 03/11/2014 - 12:00 pm.

    Her comment makes sense…

    …within the space that she inhabits. “Americans” includes only those who agree with her. Also, “politicians”.

    Everyone else is “bullies”.

  5. Submitted by Eric Snyder on 03/11/2014 - 12:10 pm.

    Bachmann is not like Einstein

    There’s no end to Bachmann’s ignorance, bias, misperception, utter lack of critical thinking skills and just general WTF, throw a Bible across the room, jaw-dropping looniness.

    The background to this, of course, is that religious and social conservatives are in a moral panic about same sex marriage. Arizona is not the only state that was/is trying to erect a wall of discrimination against LGBT people.

    But somehow, the understandable opposition to these laws gets absurdly put into the “the gays are persecuting us” mental file. As a result, a new right-wing urban legend (or would that be ‘suburban legend’?) is being born, that of the innocent, persecuted Christian conservative who is only dutifully doing “God’s will” by harming others through legislation.

    “Don’t blame us. How could we possibly be wrong when we pass laws that allow businesses to fire you because you’re gay, or give permission to public servants to refuse lesbians service if they happen to find them theologically icky? Didn’t Jesus confirm for us just this morning in prayer (again!) that there’s no difference between our political commitments and what He intends for public policy? How can these apostates not see things our way? We need a “spiritual awakening,” that’s what. But not the Islamics. They only wanna impose Sharia law on us. We’re a land of religious liberty. The gay Muslim Obama has apparently forgotten that.

    And oh yes, as long as we’re trying to pass those laws God says we need more guns and ammo, fewer environmental regulations (John 30: 77), and smaller government.”

    • Submitted by Greg Kapphahn on 03/13/2014 - 02:40 pm.

      I Can’t Help But Admire Your Biblical Citation

      there being, of course, no such chapter and verse in the Bible,…

      but, of course, that’s in keeping with a very large amount of what our “conservative” “Christian” friends believe they find in THEIR Bibles too.

      Most of those who continuously spout about Jesus and their faith know as much about what’s actually in the Bible as they do about what’s actually in the Constitution of the United States, which is to say “nada.”

      I’m reminded of a time when the “conservative” members of the local ministerial association of which I was a member brought in a resolution they wanted to have us all sign and print in the local paper regarding how we all supported the “Biblical image of marriage” (with the strongly implied threat that any of us who didn’t sign would be noticeable for our absence in the local paper).

      They seemed to be quite taken aback when the rest of us had the audacity to remind them of Solomon’ hundreds of wives and concubines, Jacob’s two wives, Abraham’s son Ishmael, by his wife’s slave, and his other son Isaac, miraculously by his wife, Sarah, when she was far beyond childbearing age, all of which were approved of by God, and asked them exactly which Biblical image of marriage they had in mind.

      They seemed to have forgotten that, when it comes, to marriage in the Bible, just about anything was permissible and completely acceptable to God at one time or another. Of course, being Biblical literalists, their way of dealing with the Bible’s irreconcilable internal contradictions on marriage was to drop the whole idea.

      I didn’t even have to mention the love that David and Jonathan shared or David’s grief-stricken lament for Jonathan a life of which says, “I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” [II Samuel 1:26]

      and that IS a real chapter and verse.

  6. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 03/11/2014 - 12:35 pm.

    It’s getting easier

    every day to ignore whatever Mrs. Bachmann has to say. I look forward to her retirement becoming complete and official. Intellectually, she retired some time ago.

  7. Submitted by RB Holbrook on 03/11/2014 - 04:51 pm.

    Not stupid

    Once again, the general tone of this comment shows that Rep. Bachmann is not stupid. She is horribly wrong on this issue, as well as on most others, but she is not stupid.

    When she says things like this, she is getting her base all riled up. This allows her to stay relevant, as a commentator for some right-wing media outlet, or (Lord help us all!) as a future candidate for elective office. Her base will eat her interview up like candy. The more anyone pushes back against her, the more she will look like a hero to those who believe that white, conservative Christians are the only ones being victimized in America today. Rep. Bachmann’s appeal is to the sort of person who reflexively rejects anything coming from a Democrat or liberal, and takes their disagreement (or, as they prefer to characterize it, their hatred) as proof of her effectiveness. Rep. Bachmann is a master at manipulation. She has the sort of malevolent genius of a carnival barker fleecing the rubes, or of a cult leader, taking his followers to some unknown utopia.

    No, Rep. Bachmann is not stupid. Her followers, on the other hand, are a different matter.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 03/11/2014 - 05:21 pm.

      The good news is

      that her base is marginalizing itself.
      The question is how long the fiscal conservatives can stay in bed with the social conservatives.

      • Submitted by Dennis Tester on 03/12/2014 - 10:42 am.

        They’re synonymous

        Both are all about self-reliance, a rejection of big government, and the embrace of religious and other liberties provided for in the constitution.

        You can’t call yourself a constitutionalist and not defend people’s 1st amendment religious freedoms. You can’t wrap yourself in your religious liberties and not defend people’s economic freedoms.

        They’re synonymous. Which is why the Left opposes both.

        • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 03/12/2014 - 12:55 pm.

          That’s why

          social conservatives want to dictate their religious based morals to everyone else.
          The Constitution says:
          “AMENDMENT I
          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
          That’s it. Congress (or the States according to current reading) can make no law that would favor Christianity (or any particular form of it) over any other religion, or prohibit anyone from practicing that -religion-. Telling someone else how to practice religion. or to behave according to your religious standards, is not a constitutional right. Quite to the contrary, in fact.

          And then there’s what Jesus said (I assume that you accept his teachings) about religion and economics. This is of course irrelevant to constitutionality, but your conflated economic and religious freedom.
          BTW — the word “freedom” is used only once in the Constitution (again in the 1st Amendment): “….abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

          You can’t call yourself a ‘constitutionalist’ unless you read it.

          • Submitted by Dennis Tester on 03/12/2014 - 02:49 pm.

            Religious-based morals

            Most of our common law is based on religious-based morals. What other kind of morals are there?

            Which commonly accepted pagan or secularist writing specifically outlaws such things as murder, adultery, theft, and perjury, for example, that are found in the Ten Commandments, which aren’t even a Christian invention, as you probably know.

            It’s interesting that you would point out that “freedom” is mentioned only once in the Constitution. Did you know that God is mentioned four times in the Declaration of Independence, the rationale for the Founding?

            • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 03/12/2014 - 03:34 pm.

              The Declaration of Independence

              was a political document; our laws are not derived from it.
              There was much argument before and during its writing about the appropriate wording (and much argument since about the appropriate interpretation).
              And much more thought and debate about the wording of the Constitution which -was- to be the basis for a living body of law, not just a justification for a single event.

              And actually the ‘Ten Commandments’ (as variously written by the different branches of Christianity -are- a Christian ‘invention’.
              Judaism has 613 Mitzvot (as enumerated by Maimonides); of which the first 13 form the basis for the Christian Ten Commandments.

              Federal and State laws barring “such things as murder, adultery, theft, and perjury, for example….” are, as required by the First Amendment, secular. And neither murder nor adultery as broadly construed in the modern sense are forbidden by all versions of the Ten Commandments (religion has historically had a certain amount of sexism built in).

              And finally, those states with the highest measures of religiosity (Church membership, attendance, etc) also have the highest rates of violent crime. Just a correlation, to be sure, but interesting none the less.

              Of course, there have been books written on all of these topics; you might read some about moral philosophy.

            • Submitted by jason myron on 03/12/2014 - 04:15 pm.

              What other kind of morals are there?

              Uhhh, all of them? Since when is morality strictly a religious concept? Or is that something else you people have attempted to hijack along with the words “freedom” and “patriotism?” Moral code has long been practiced due to philosophy and culture, as well as religion. For someone who claims to love the Constitution so much, you sure seem shaky on the whole ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” thing. That includes YOUR religion as well.

            • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 03/14/2014 - 10:21 am.

              Religious-based morals

              The common law (at least, the criminal aspects of it) are based on biblical proscriptions. Most of the common law deals with fairly mundane civil topics.

              As far as “pagan or secularist writings,” you may want to consider the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1770 BCE), the criminal laws of Athens and other Greek city-states, or the Twelve Tables of Roman Law (c. 440 BCE). The criminal codes of the various Soviet Republics also outlawed such things as murder, theft, robbery, or rape.

              • Submitted by Dennis Tester on 03/14/2014 - 01:25 pm.

                pagan or secularist writings

                I said “commonly accepted” i.e., comparable to societal reference as the King James Bible, for example.

                • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 03/14/2014 - 02:32 pm.

                  Pagan or Secularist Writings

                  At the time, codifications such as the Code of Hammurabi or the Twelve Tablets were “commonly accepted” in their societies. Writings from other early societies have not survived. Certainly, the criminal codes of the Soviet Union were “commonly accepted” as binding by the people who lived their.

                  Interesting you should bring up the KJV in this context, since it had its origins as a political editing of scriptures.

  8. Submitted by Todd Hintz on 03/12/2014 - 01:38 pm.

    Gay Bullying

    Maybe Ms. Bachmann should author an anti-bullying bill…

  9. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 03/12/2014 - 01:58 pm.

    I like it!

    Personally, I think Todd Hintz has hit on something here. Perhaps Mrs. Bachmann would like to author an anti-bullying bill more in keeping with her precious religious liberties – and without imposing on those same religious liberties as practiced by others. I look forward to the result.

  10. Submitted by tiffany vanvorken on 03/18/2014 - 05:32 am.


    She is great as is Sarah Palin. Telling it as it is, instead of talking “on eggshells”

Leave a Reply