It’s like Phyllis Schlafly let her cat dance on her keyboard!

According to ThinkProgress, Crazy-Eyes Bachmann is the first occupant of the GOP Clown Car to sign onto the FAMiLY LEADER pledge (no, I am not making up that random non-capitalization), a little manifesto for The Handmaid’s Tale with a wee side of V for Vendetta theocracy.

I have found a copy of the full text of the pledge, and I’ve read it so you don’t have to. Here are some selected highlights!

Faithful monogamy is at the very heart of a designed and purposeful order – as conveyed by Jewish and Christian Scripture, by Classical Philosophers, by Natural Law, and by the American Founders – upon which our concepts of Creator-endowed human rights, racial justice and gender equality all depend.

Yeah, that same Jewish and Christian scripture that portrayed powerful patriarchs with multiple wives and hordes of concubines. “Natural Law” just means they want more juicy sperm-meets-egg goodness. The “American Founders” would have to be some weird secret society I’ve never heard of, as our Founding Fathers weren’t really concerned with “family” “values.” We’ll see what these idiots mean by “racial justice” and “gender equality” in just a moment.

Enduring marital fidelity between one man and one woman protects innocent children, vulnerable women, the rights of fathers, the stability of families, and the liberties of all American citizens under our republican form of government. Our exceptional and free society simply cannot endure without the transmission of personal virtue, from one generation to the next, by means of nurturing, nuclear families comprised of sexually-faithful husbands and wives, fathers and mothers.

Notice how only fathers have “rights,” whereas women are “vulnerable” and need protection. In a “free society,” it appears that all families have to look the same way. Get married young, have lots of kids, and never get divorced. No whining, no exceptions. That’s freedom.

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African- American baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President.

No, I did not just make that up. I’ll just let that sit there for you.

First, they’re conveniently leaving out the number of children that resulted from rape of female slaves by masters. Those men who forcibly impregnated their human property did not raise their offspring as fathers, but owned them as slaveholders. They have nothing to say about how children could be sold away from their parents, and spouses could be sold away from each other, at any time.

And then, they say, “Sure, slavery was bad, but at least those kids knew their fathers!”? Really, FAMiLY LEADER? Really?!

Here is what they mean by “freedom,” everyone. I’m sure they see the reproductive coercion of female slaves as one of those perks that we sadly had to give up with Emancipation.

Ready to keep going? Yes? Good.

Social protections, especially for women and children, have been evaporating as we have collectively “debased the currency” of marriage. This debasement continues as a function of adultery; “quickie divorce;” physical and verbal spousal abuse; non-committal co-habitation; exemplary infidelity and “unwed cheating” among celebrities, sports figures and politicians; anti-scientific bias which holds, in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health.

I guess “social protections” here means “all women and children live under the benevolent rule of The Man.” They make a show of hand-wringing over spousal abuse, but they don’t have anything to offer to help battered women. When violence is present in a marriage, we generally advise the abused spouse to…you know, leave.

They’re just spraying the word “science” at the wall and hoping it sticks. Besides, where does anyone say that promiscuity and homosexuality “optimize” individual or public health? We liberal heathens merely argue that if people are educated about healthy sexual behaviors (read: condoms are often involved), then sleeping around and having gay sex aren’t dangerous.

Therefore, in any elected or appointed capacity by which I may have the honor of serving our fellow citizens in these United States, I the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* to honor and to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only between one man and one woman. I vow* to do so through my:

…yadda yadda yadda, oh here’s something:

Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.

Substitute “Bible” in place of “Constitution” and you’ll see what they actually have in mind.

Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage – faithful monogamy between one man and one woman – through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.

Quick vocabulary lesson: “Polygamy” includes both polyandry and polygyny. The suffix -andry refers to man (polyandry: wife with multiple husbands), while -gyny refers to woman (polygyny: husband with multiple wives), while polygamy could be either one. We mainly use “polygamy” to mean “polygyny” because we consider it the default since we so rarely ever see a polyandrous family. Still, the wording is mildly redundant.

(Besides: what, I can’t have a polyandrous marriage? But, when I have double-penetrative intercourse, I’ll have to bring in a dude who isn’t my husband!)

Same old slippery slope alarmism. Same-sex marriage rights leaders to acceptance of polygamy, oh noes.

Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy.

And if this is a meaningful correlation (which is a different question), you’d think they’d be all over better sex ed and contraceptive access so that there won’t be so many kids growing up without the supposed benefits of the monogamous patriarchal family, but I don’t think that’s what they have in mind.

Support for prompt reform of uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy, and marital/divorce law, and extended “second chance” or “cooling-off” periods for those seeking a “quickie divorce.”

According to the dictionary installed on my Mac, “uneconomic” means unprofitable. Translation: “cut off those no-good welfare babymamas, they’ll have to get married and support Fathers’ Rights!” Shorter version: “Screw you bitches, I got mine.”

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.

My eyes! My poor, sweet eyes!

By “innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy,” I think they mean to encompass zygotes up through teenagers, and really, just the ones conceived to married couples. These people apparently think children born to unmarried mothers might as well be slaves.

Humane protection of women from sexual slavery—so that means abusive husbands can be prosecuted for marital rape?

No? Didn’t think so.

“Seduction into promiscuity”? What? You people are just giving me ideas, you know. I’ll leave the kids alone, but hide yo’ wives, mother-fuckers!

Pornography: notice they don’t say anything about coming between men and their porn. It’s only about protecting women and children from porn. And I certainly won’t argue with keeping children the hell away from porno-producers, but…there’s nothing here that says men can’t still enjoy gay porn.

Notice how “infanticide and abortion” are on the list of “coercion and stolen innocence,” rather than, shall we say, killing? First of all, if you take away safe abortion access, you just get more infanticide. You can’t realistically get rid of both. Second, this is the group that has already established that women need protection but don’t have rights. Of course they don’t have any problem with coerced childbearing and keeping women trapped in unhappy marriages.

Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); plus prompt termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.

Again with the barely-comprehensible purple prose!

They want to protect our troops, not from needless death in bullshit occupations, but from…you guessed it…sexytimes!

“Intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds” means, I guess, is when soldiers see other soldiers doing 69 in the barracks. That’s the simplest definition I can think of for this.

When they imagine women holding combat positions, they just can’t let go of the image of those female troops getting kidnapped into sexual slavery by the Evil Swarthy Enemies. It only bothers them if those female troops have husbands or involved fathers. If she’s not married and doesn’t have a father who loves her, then we don’t give a shit what happens to her.

In all seriousness, though, I think a lot of families would be strengthened if their husband/fathers weren’t getting killed in combat. You want to see women live with husbands and children grow up with fathers? Then get them the heck out of those war zones.

Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.19 

Ha. Ha. Hahahahahaha!

The primary difference between Sharia Islam (like that’s really encroaching on our territory) and this bunch is dress code.

Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.

WE NEED MORE BABIES! ESPECIALLY WHITE ONES! Wait, did we just say that out loud? Oh well. BABIES!

Commitment to downsizing government and the enormous burden upon American families of the USA‟s $14.3 trillion public debt, its $77 trillion in unfunded liabilities, its $1.5 trillion federal deficit, and its $3.5 trillion federal budget.

“Downsize government” means burn the safety net, gut the school system, and flush health coverage down the toilet, while putting highly-paid elected officials to work on enshrining Ozzie and Harriet (but with more babies) into the Constitution. Make government so tiny it’ll crawl up my vagina and set up camp on my cervix.

Fierce defense of the First Amendment’s rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy.

Oh, for fuck’s sake. Do I really need to say this?


Free speech for you means free speech for me. Freedom of expression does not mean protection from dissent. Also, pornography was protected under the First Amendment last I checked.

4 thoughts on “It’s like Phyllis Schlafly let her cat dance on her keyboard!

  1. …of course, Ms. Schlafly is a, shall we say it as Gene Rayburn said so well in “Match Game”, a (blank)…

    …and for proof, here’s a classic Mike Royko column, on her thesis that women transmit signals that they are virtuous, and if they don’t, they deserve whatever sexual abuse they receive:,1209680

    Take the long way home, Ms. Schlafly, and I pray that God has mercy on your Nazi reprobate soul, as He consigns you to burn in the Lake of Fire, and may you have a permanent yeast infection that you can neither treat or scratch, except by having Michele Bachmann do a thirty-three score and six minus twenty-nine score and seventeen on you…

  2. The primary difference between Sharia Islam (like that’s really encroaching on our territory) and this bunch is dress code.

    Not so much – go to some of the fundamentalist so-called Christian colleges, and see what the women there wear – usually ankle length dresses, long sleeve blouses or dresses with no sign of cleavage, often bonnets or demure hats…

    …the only things they don’t require them to wear are cameos around their necks.

    And slacks? My family was once in a fundamentalist so-called Christian church, and when my mom wore slacks, she got dressed down, because they said slacks on women were sinful (never mind that not even ankle was showing, and my mom had no figure whatsoever). We left that so-called Christian church forthwith…

    The only difference between Islam and fundy so-called Christians is that each think they are the only ones who have the right to rape every woman in the world, and would happily mutilate and kill anyone who gets in their way.

  3. …oh, and there’s no way any self-respecting cat would put up with Ms. Schlafly – a giant box elder bug, or a Japanese beetle, or an earwig, or a boll weevil, maybe…

  4. Take the long way home, Ms. Schlafly, and I pray that God has mercy on your Nazi reprobate soul, as He consigns you to burn in the Lake of Fire, and may you have a permanent yeast infection that you can neither treat or scratch.Thanks for sharing the informative post.

Comments are closed.