From Sheryl Gay Stolberg’s NYT story:
In June, Truth Wins Out, a national nonprofit group dedicated to fighting “anti-gay religious extremism,” sought out people who had undergone “ex-gay therapy” at Dr. Bachmann’s clinic. One person, Andrew Ramirez, a 24-year-old manager for a lumber company, responded that he had.
The group also sent its communications director, John Becker, who is gay, to Bachmann & Associates to pose as a patient seeking to become heterosexual. He recorded his conversations with a therapist on two hidden cameras and an audio device.
The group shared its recordings with The Times and other news organizations; they depict Timothy Wiertzema, a licensed marriage and family therapist, as willing to work with Mr. Becker but not aggressively pressing him to change his sexuality.
At Bachmann & Associates, which advertises treatment for a range of problems —including marital discord, anger management, addictions and spiritual issues — the emphasis on faith is strong. “Christ is the Almighty counselor,” Dr. Bachmann says on the center’s Web site.
Their conversations touched on faith and God; Mr. Becker volunteered that he was raised Roman Catholic. Asked about the possibility of “getting rid of it completely,” Mr. Wiertzema replied that some people had, but that for others homosexuality simply “becomes manageable.”
Wayne Besen, the founder of Truth Wins Out, said, “What we found was reasonably professional with a skewed point of view toward homosexuality being a negative and no offering of hope that it is something positive.”
There is also a second story in the New York Times outlining the centrality of political gay bashing in Michele Bachmann’s career. She may be trying to look moderate in an effort to appear sane to mainstream voters, but her history tells another story.
Rudy Giuliani appaeared on CNN today, saying: “…“I think the Republican Party would be well advised to get the heck out of people’s bedrooms and let these things get decided by states,” Giuliani said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We’d be a much more successful political party if we stuck to our economic, conservative roots.”
Hopefully, the Republican party hears the words and takes them to heart. Sadly, I don’t think his message stands a chance, though, with people like Bachmann around, pounding the drum, and predicting doom-and-gloom for the USA if we don’t heed her words, and those of her ilk.
Pounding the drum? Yikes! Sounds like the Westboro Baptist Church!
CAFurball, sadly I think you are right. Unfortunately much of the “base” of the Rethugs consists of clinically insane people (which probably explains Bachmann’s success). It is so sad that words from sensible people, such as Giulian’s comment on the Rethugs staying out of people’s bedrooms is likely to fall on deaf ears.
I am glad though that the Bachmanns have been exposed. Both of them are completely repulsive and belong in a prison for their lies and what Marcus has done to mess up people that came to him for help.
Why I like The Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/michele-bachmann-marriage-pledge_b_901031.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=071811&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
The political ideology of michele bachmann and her right-wing extremist base is based on hate mongering and the vilification of their imaginary enemies. In an historical perspective this type of angry ignorant mob mentality cultivating is nothing new. The more alarming aspect of michele bachmann is that there are those who would willfully overlook her fundamental lack of qualification to be the president of the united states in order to elect an extremist puppet who will carry out their extremist agenda.
“antiscientific bias which holds, in complete absence of empirical proof, that nonheterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible, and akin to innate traits like race, gender, and eye color”
This assertion seems pretty solid to me. I don’t think “empirical proof” has been achieved of any of those three things, much less all three. Is there disagreement about the facts or the tone?