Minnesota Christian therapist Marcus Bachmann, the husband of Republican presidential runner Michele Bachman, is a spokesman for anti-gay and ex-gay causes.
In a 2010 radio interview replayed widely this week Dr Bachmann expresses his homophobic views quite clearly:
We have to understand: Barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined. And just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean that we’re supposed to go down that road. That’s what’s called a “sinful nature.” And we have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings [from] moving into the action steps.
In an MSNBC report, The Daily Beast‘s David Graham alleges that Bachmann has practiced reparative therapy. When asked whether Bachmann believed in a “gay cure,” Graham said he hadn’t explicitly admitted it, but “that appears to be his attitude.”
Anchor Thomas Roberts also notes that Marcus Bachmann received over $130,000 in US public money last year to fund therapy, and he questions whether government money has been paying for gay-to-straight treatment.
Update 7-7-2011 by David Roberts
Full audio of the Marcus Bachman clip is available below. While some have implied that his statements were taken out of context, the additional audio is anything but redeeming. Notice also the host’s question refers to the letter sent to all school superintendents in the US by the bogus “American College of Pediatricians” (not to be confused with the legitimate American Academy of Pediatrics).
The entire show is archived here.
That these people receive tax money for such a bogus enterprise, deserves MAJOR scrutiny and rejection. I can just imagine a foster child or one of their biological children being in for a world of hurt in that family.
that man is the BIGGEST QUEEN. I mean, lordy, honey, you’re not fooling ANYONE!
Gays are not sick. MAYBE HE IS SICK. Gays are the same as straight people and maybe HE is the one who needs help if he thinks its a “sickness” to be gay. Its not A CHOICE. Its something your born with.
Hold on there! What came before the sound bite phrase which was excerpted? A text without a context is a pretext. Judging from the sound bite, it’s not at all clear that he said that gays ARE barbarians. In what context was the word barbarian meant? Are gays so literal-minded that they make no allowance for simile, metaphor, hyperbole? And did he really say “Gays are sick?” If so, where’s that sound-bite? And, btw, being anti-gay marriage is NOT being anti-gay person. There are many gays who do not support gay marriage. Of the total population of coupled gay men and lesbians living in states where gay marriage is legal, what percentage actually go and get married? 10%? 25%? More than half? Is there a silent majority of gays who don’t care about getting married? Are we hearing from just a very vocal minority? Why isn’t the news media asking these questions?
ludovico said:
You imply that those who are not (or not yet) married in areas where it is now legal to do so are somehow against marriage equality. That’s a rather absurd conclusion. As with straight people, some gays may never marry, or it may be some time before they find the right person, but that doesn’t mean they should not have that right available. That’s the point of equality.
Ludivico,
#1. This SITE, ex gay watch, has contributors who are VERY experienced with ex gay ministries or pursuing it themselves at some point in their own young lives. THEY know of what they see and speak here.
2. There are hetero men and women who CHOOSE not to marry, some of whom were soured on the idea by the divorces or marriage problems within their families, the WHOLE of heteros are not discriminated against, nor restricted to marry as many times as they want to because of the choices or opinions of a minority of them.
3. To judge the whole of gay people, by the criteria of a minority of them who have voiced not wanting to get married, is not only wrong. But unfair. It’s a situation that does not have nearly the same opportunity, nor rights, nor access equal to that of hetero people. If gay people are reticent about it at all, they have a much better reason to be. Here in CA, over 18,000 same sex couples got married, and in six months, factions rallied to try and divorce ALL of them involuntarily.
And are STILL trying to get any other options reversed or rendered a legally insecure situation because of DOMA.
4. It’s not gay people who created or support DOMA, nor implemented it, but who are at the mercy of it, and a majority that insists on keeping getting married impossible for gay people whether THEY choose to marry or not.
5. All of which runs contra to how the integrity or popularity of marriage could possibly be saved by discriminating against gay couples to have the option.
6. Those issues that make marriage difficult for ANYONE, other than bigotry, would be poverty, violence, addiction, adultery and divorce. NOT gay people. So what would make sense, is questioning those who would deny gay people the choice, why these other issues don’t seem to concern THEM as much as when gay people try to marry.
7. There is no silent majority of gay people who don’t want to get married. If you were LISTENING, you wouldn’t NEED to ask something like that.
8. The media, if they are worth their college degrees in journalism, and listening to gay people, would know better than to ask something that stupid. Claims, and speculation aren’t necessary when the OBVIOUS is at hand and one is paying attention.
There, you got answered here. Regardless of how rhetorical your questioning was.
So maybe he meant gays are like barbarians. And?
Gays that don’t want to get married already have that right. The media doesn’t have to hear from them. As to the percentage of gays who want to get married, it’s irrelevant, unless you believe that in America the majority gets to deny the rights of a minority. And if that’s your belief, you might want to take up that argument with the Constitution.
Ludovico said:
I’m not really sure how Bachman’s comments could be interpreted any differently no matter what came before, but I have added the full audio clip of the exchange, including the question which solicited his answer, to the end of the original post above.