Over the past few weeks, Republican Presidential Candidate Michelle Bachman has been repeatedly asked about her role in her husband's clinic in which it has been revealed that they advocate a sort of reparative therapy for homosexuals, also known as "pray away the Gay". While her husband, Marcus Bachman, has denied that this is what the clinic does, there has been footage released online showing that it does just that.
So far Michelle Bachman has dodged all questions, refusing to address it other than to say that she's proud of her husband and that he should be off limits because SHE is the one running for office, not him (or her kids or foster kids).
And while there are many solid and relevant questions that have been asked of her regarding the clinic, and the fact that it allegedly practices a widely dismissed and harmful form of "therapy", and that it receives federal funding, this isn't even the most important question in my mind. I think that many in the media are missing the most important aspect to Bachman.
While it may be true that her husband is not running for President, and that she is, there is something that she has said in the past that I think brings her husband into the conversation in a highly relevant way.
MORE AFTER BREAK
While running for Congress in 2006, Michelle Bachman told an audience that she had no interest in taxes or tax law (which she has a degree in) but that her husband ordered her to do so. She explained that God tells Christian women in the Bible to "be submissive to your husband", and so despite having ZERO interest in tax law, and despite the fact that she did not want to pursue tax law, because her husband ordered her to, she did so.
Now some people are recalling those comments and inquiring, quite reasonably in my opinion, whether or not that is a good thing to have in a Presidential Candidate? I mean, as Bachman has said herself, her husband is not running for President, she is. However if she has said explicitly that her husband orders her to do things she does not want to do, and yet she does it because she believes God has ordained that she be submissive to her husband, and do whatever he asks, why is it out of line to suggest that if she became President, that this might come up again?
What if a situation comes up involving civil liberties, and her husband orders her to take a certain stance on this that conflicts with what she personally thinks about it? Will she do what she is ordered to do by her husband, because God tells her to? Will she allow her husband to essentially dictate her duties in the White House, because she is ordered to be submissive?
On the surface this may seem to be a ridiculous suggestion. I mean, the Presidency is a serious situation. However as a Christian, I can tell you that there are many people I know who adhere to my faith that take things in the Bible QUITE literally to the point where if something is written in the Bible, they believe it 100% absolutely, and if you disagree then you're not a real Christian.
So if Michelle Bachman believes she is ordered to be submissive and do whatever her husband says, and he clearly has to enjoy that little perk (although I have to admit, quite selfishly, that if I was married, and my wife would do anything I wanted, getting a tax degree would definitely not be on my short list), why is it crazy to think that he could use that to his advantage and order her to amend a the Constitution to ban Gay marriage? Perhaps a ban on certain books or internet sites that they deem offensive?
Is it really that crazy to think something like this could happen?
Below David Pakman discusses this with his producer Louis Motamedi on The David Pakman Show, and I think brings up some legitimate points.