When trying to figure out where presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) gets her stringent, anti-gay views, you only have to look as far as her husband. Dr. Marcus Bachmann, who has described himself as his wife’s “strategist,” runs a Christian-based counseling center in Minnesota that has been rumored to offer reparative treatment for those looking to “ungay” themselves.

Just last summer, Dr. Bachmann explained his position on homosexuality while offering theoretical advice to parents concerned that one of their children was gay.

BACHMANN: We have to understand: barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined. Just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean that we are supposed to go down that road. That’s what is called the sinful nature. We have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings from moving into the action steps…

And let’s face it: what is our culture, what is our public education system doing today? They are giving full, wide-open doors to children, not only giving encouragement to think it but to encourage action steps. That’s why when we understand what truly is the percentage of homosexuals in this country, it is small. But by these open doors, I can see and we are experiencing, that it is starting to increase.

Listen:

Along with offering faith-based counseling at his clinic, Bachmann also gives presentations at various conferences. In November 2005, he and Rep. Bachmann both ran sessions at a “Minnesota Pastors’ Summit” in Eden Prairie, Minnesota: hers focused on the gay marriage amendment she was trying to push through the state legislature, and his was titled “The Truth About the Homosexual Agenda.”

One of the people present for Dr. Bachmann’s talk almost had to leave the room because “there was so much bile.” Curt Prins, a marketing executive who identifies as gay, reported that Bachmann believed homosexuality was a “choice” rather than due to genetics:

The climax of the presentation was when, according to Prins, Bachmann brought up “three ex-gays, like part of a PowerPoint presentation.” The trio, two white men and a black woman, all testified that they had renounced their homosexuality. “One of them said, ‘If I was born gay, then I’ll have to be born again,’” Prins recalls. “The crowd went crazy.”

After seeing her husband’s virulent remarks, it’s no surprise then that Michele Bachmann has fiercely disparaged the gay community and has announced she’s in favor of an anti-gay marriage amendment on the campaign trail. What’s the most terrifying isn’t what Dr. Bachmann said, but the threat that the United States could elect a president who believes that homosexuality can be disciplined out of someone.

–Sarah Bufkin

Editor’s note: The Dump Bachmann Blog had previously posted audio of Marcus’ anti-gay rant.

Our guest blogger is Elon Green, a freelance writer living in Brooklyn.

The National Review reacted to last Friday’s New York legislation granting gay couples the right to marry in a manner that can charitably be described as petulant. The Review’s output over the last few days has been overwhelmingly cruel, hateful, and, in light of its history, surprising.

To put it mildly, it’s rather unwise for the National Review — with its long paper trail of bigotry famously aimed at African-Americans (William Buckley, the magazine’s founder, pondered the “cultural superiority of white over Negro”) and less famously at gays (he wrote that how one feels about AIDS sufferers is “only uncomplicated…if one accepts the moral injunction that all sinners should be forgiven”) — to so eagerly claim that the adoption of gay marriage is a slippery slope that ends with a United States transformed into a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship. And yet that’s exactly what they’ve done, with a few courageous exceptions.

Given that the National Review is still the flagship publication of the conservative movement — e.g., the Republican front-runner for president, Mitt Romney, has more than a half-dozen bylines this year alone — the magazine’s behavior is all the more disturbing.

When the New York Senate passed a marriage equality bill on June 24 at roughly 10:48 p.m., this is how the National Review handled the news:

● At 11:49, Maggie Gallagher, whose organization the National Organization for Marriage tried and failed to derail the vote, warned that the Republican Party will “pay a grave price” for allowing four of its members to vote for the bill.

● Two days later, editor Kathryn Lopez, in response to criticism of Archbishop Timothy Dolan’s contention that by allowing gay marriage the United States was no better than the Hermit Kingdom, told her colleague, “Do not be so quick to dismiss the North Korea comparison.”

● On Monday, George Weigel compared gay rights activists to Bull Connor, the Klan-sympathizing segregationist public saftey commissioner famous for turning a fire hose on blacks in Birmingham, Alabama.

● That same day, Rick Santorum was given space to accuse New York of “wreaking havoc not only with the definitions of the federal law and the majority of states, but…with the single most important and time-tested institution of every successful society.”

● A few hours later, Glenn Stanton, the director of Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family, complained that a woman he saw on the subway — presumed to be a lesbian — was “playing make-believe daddy” with her child.

● Maggie Gallagher, in a separate piece, wrote that the vote is indicative of a civil rights movement that simply wants to “redefin[e] the Book of Genesis as bigotry.”

● Yesterday, David French, senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, wrote that gay marriage is a “blow for self-indulgence and for adult-focused self-actualization.”

● Shortly thereafter, in an interview with Kathryn Jean Lopez, Princeton University’s Robert George said the equality vote promotes “forms of sexual conduct that were traditionally regarded in the West and many other places as beneath the dignity of human beings as free and rational creatures.”

It’s worth noting two exceptions. The first is longtime Deputy Managing Editor Michael Potemra; in the early morning of June 25, he wrote, “[T]onight, I see neither the face of anarchy, nor that of a nascent ‘North Korea.’ I see smiles on young people — and also, on some quiet senior citizens who are actually old enough to remember Stonewall 1969.” The second is editor Jason Lee Steorts, who wrote, “I would like to see the reaction of a North Korean refugee to your claim. […] It would also be nice if you troubled yourself to make an argument.”

A National Review staffer who hasn’t commented on the vote itself or the backlash by his employer is Jonah Goldberg, the magazine’s editor-at-large. As it happens, it was Goldberg who in 2002 wrote:

Conservatives should feel some embarrassment and shame that we are outraged at instances of racism now that it is easy to be. Conservatives…were often at best MIA on the issue of civil rights in the 1960s. Liberals were on the right side of history on the issue of race.

Nearly a decade later, it appears that conservatives — certainly Mr. Goldberg’s own publication — have once again come down on the wrong side of history. I hope it doesn’t take 40 years for the next apology.

A new study shows that Minnesota LGBT students experience significant harassment and bullying for their sexual orientation:

- 80 percent reported verbal harassment.
- 47 percent reported physical harassment (pushing).
- 19 percent reported assaults (punching, kicking).
- Almost 100 percent reported hearing “gay” used in a derogatory manner.
- 92 percent reported hearing other anti-gay terms.

Safety concerns have been heightened in Minnesota schools after a spate of suicides in the Anoka Hennepin School District that parents and friends speculate were motivated by bullying.

A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is on Minnesota’s 2012 ballot, which means opponents of equality will be pouring millions of dollars into the state to spread stereotyping stigma-mongering messages over the next year and a half. When young LGBT people are surrounded by conservative attitudes and are not accepted by their families or communities, it greatly increases the likelihood that they will attempt suicide or experience other negative health outcomes.

Lambda Legal and Garden State Equality filed a lawsuit today that could be the final nail in the coffin of civil unions as a “separate but equal” mechanism for recognizing same-sex relationships. Filed on behalf of seven same-sex families whose civil unions “relegate them to second-class status,” the suit argues that civil unions violate both the New Jersey Constitution and the 14th Amendment of the federal Constitution.

In October 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in Lewis v. Harris that “the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state constitution.” The court did not mandate marriage as the solution, but gave the the legislature 180 days to rectify the inequality. That December, the state passed a law establishing civil unions and also created the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, which was charged with evaluating the implementation of civil unions to see how they measured up to marriage for same-sex couples.

The Commission released its final report in December 2008 with a weighty condemnation of civil unions as unequal and a call for full marriage equality (PDF):

After eighteen public meetings, 26 hours of oral testimony and hundreds of pages of written submission from more than 150 witnesses, this Commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children. In a number of cases, the negative effect of the Civil Union Act on the physical and mental health of same-sex couples and their children is striking, largely because a number of employers and hospitals do not recognize the rights and benefits of marriage for civil union couples.

Despite the Commission’s report, civil unions persist in New Jersey. The legislature attempted to pass marriage equality in January of 2010, but the measure failed. Gov. Chris Christie (R) made it clear this weekend that he would not sign a marriage equality bill into law.

In an interview yesterday, New York state Sen. Steven Saland (R) — who was one of the swing votes to help pass marriage equality last week — shared that the New Jersey commission’s report greatly influenced his understanding that civil unions did not measure up to marriage.

President Obama was asked if he believes that civil marriage is a constitutional right during his press conference this morning. Rather than answering that question, Obama reiterated his record on LGBT issues and argued that marriage is best left to the states. What happened in New York “was a good thing,” Obama said. “I think that’s exactly how things should work. I think it’s important for us to work through these issues because each state is going to be different and each community is going to be different”:

OBAMA: What we’ve also done is we’ve said that DOMA — the Defense of Marriage Act — is unconstitutional and so we’ve said that we cannot defend the federal government poking its nose into what states are doing and putting our thumb on the scale against same-sex couples. What I’ve seen happen over the last several years and what happened in New York last week, I think was a good thing. Because what you saw was the people of New York having a debate, talking through these issues. It was contentious, it was emotional, but ultimately they made a decision to recognize civil marriages and I think that’s exactly how things should work. I think it’s important for us to work through these issues because each state is going to be different and each community is going to be different.

Watch it:

The Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler asked Obama if he personally supports marriage equality — given his belief that the New York law was “a good thing.” Obama replied, “I’m not going to make news on that today. Good try though.” Meckler followed up, but Obama again passed up the opportunity, saying, “I’ll keep on giving you the same answer until I get a different one.” Watch that exchange:

The questions come at an uncomfortable time for the White House, which is scheduled to host an LGBT pride event later this evening.

When former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) was going through a messy divorce in 2001, he was taken in by gay car dealer Howard Koeppel and his partner, Mark Hsiao. Giuliani stayed with the couple for six months, during which he promised to preside over their wedding if and when marriage equality came to New York.

Koeppel and Hsiao have been together since 1991 and were married in Connecticut in 2009, but now that New York has legalized marriage equality, they would like to repeat the ceremony with Giuliani presiding. Now that he has the chance to follow through on his promise, however, Giuliani is ducking their phone calls, the New York Post reports:

“He said, ‘Howard, I don’t ever do anything that’s not legal. If it becomes legal in New York, you’ll be one of the first ones I would marry.’ ”

Ten years later, Koeppel is distressed that his former house guest hasn’t returned the many calls he began making before the legislation was passed last week.

“It seems like a lot of people he was close to become persona non grata,” Koeppel observed.

Recent polls show that a majority of New Yorkers are happy with the new law, and Giuliani recently told reporters at a golf outing he was “glad that people who felt discriminated against have that, sort of, burden of discrimination lifted,” even though he is opposed to marriage equality.

But if Giuliani has his sights set on higher office — he is reportedly flirting with another bid to become the Republican Party’s presidential nominee — he likely views the New York law as one he cannot appear to support. Republican voters still oppose marriage equality overwhelmingly, and conservative outlets have spent the last week coming up with bogus reasons why the New York law is a threat to the institution of marriage.

Koeppel told the Post he thought Giuliani was sincere when he promised to preside over the wedding. “He doesn’t usually say things just to make you feel good,” he said. But Koeppel and Hsiao shouldn’t be shocked that Giuliani is apparently putting his political aspirations ahead of their friendship. In 2009, when the couple was married in Connecticut, Giuliani didn’t even bother to show up.

Governor Mike Beebe (D) made history last night by becoming the first Arkansas Governor to speak to a gay rights group, but reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage and civil unions. Beebe also defended the Batesville Daily Guard’s decision to exclude a same-sex partner from an obituary, arguing that the paper followed its policy of not listing partners in unpaid obituaries. He also pushed back against the suggestion that the paper’s policy amounted to de facto discrimination because gay couples can’t marry in Arkansas:

Q: That still ignores the issue that straight people can get married and same sex couples can’t. So it’s de facto discrimination the way you look at it.

BEEBE: But that’s the law. That’s the constitution and that’s the way it is.

Q: You don’t have a problem with that?

BEEBE: No, I think marriage is an institution as defined in the law and you and I disagree with that. I do have a problem with that. That is a fundamental disagreement you and I have. [...]

Q: Speaking in terms of strictly of government, do you think LGBT people are discriminated against in Arkansas?

BEEBE: Well, if you measure that by whether or not you believe there should be a law that permits marriage, to other than between a man and a woman, then you’ve answered your own question. I don’t think that’s discrimination because I think that’s appropriate societal judgment. I think that’s appropriate societal…

As the question and answer session went on, Beebe seemed unaware that Arkansas did not have a law prohibiting employers from firing individuals on the basis of sex or gender identity and initially claimed that it was illegal for a business to fire an employee because she or he is gay. He was corrected by the crowd and sounded embarrassed by the snafu. Earlier in the night, Beebe also predicted that a law banning discrimination on the basis of sex and gender would not pass in Arkansas. Listen to that exchange:

“The most important thing is stop hating everybody. Everybody stop hating. Everybody try to be a little more empathetic and a little more tolerant. Everybody understand that there are certain lines some people won’t cross. And in my opinion one of those things is marriage,” he added. Beebe also claimed that he had “evolved” on gay issues, pointing to the fact that he now supports gay people becoming foster parents.