Comments on: Bachmann’s Silence and the Waterloo Murder of a Gay Teen (Guest Voice) An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right Tue, 05 May 2015 20:25:17 +0000 hourly 1 By: Stray Mongrel Fri, 26 Aug 2011 22:46:21 +0000 “It is important that she is open and honest about her views on gays since she is a presidential candidate, but that has no bearing on the death of Mr. Andrews.”

You worded it much better than me.

The article seems to imply that Mr. and Mrs. Bachmann are responsible for cruelty and death of gay people, and that’s patently absurd.

By: DaGoat Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:25:44 +0000 Bachmann is a poor candidate for multiple reasons, and I would be in the group that would prefer her to remain silent since that would be preferable to most of the stuff coming out of her mouth. However, there is nothing to connect her to the death of Mr. Andrews other than the town she moved away from 40 years ago, and this article is gratuitous. It’s reminiscent of the articles trying to tie Sarah Palin to the acts of Jared Lee Loughner.

It’s important Bachmann speak out so people like Andrews know exactly how she feels? Yeah that makes a lot of sense. It is important that she is open and honest about her views on gays since she is a presidential candidate, but that has no bearing on the death of Mr. Andrews.

By: JSpencer Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:39:14 +0000 Of course any American has the right to adopt attitudes that are backward, superstitious, bigoted, and hypocritical but they should also expect to receive considerable criticism for doing so. The ability of the USA to put the brakes on it’s decline into idiocracy will depend on citizens who are smart enough to recognize dangerous fools (like Bachmann) when they see them.

By: Stray Mongrel Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:26:44 +0000 I don’t think that stating a religious belief, or pursuing that belief in the social arena is anything wrong. Quite frankly, she is free to have an opinion about homosexuality, and that is her Constitutional right. I do not believe that anyone was forcibly abducted, and subjected to “reparative therapy” against their will.

As a Christian I might share some of these spiritual beliefs, but I do not believe that I (or any other American) has the right to legislate forced Christian beliefs on other Americans.

While I share the belief that Homosexuality is against Christian teaching, I also believe that so is heterosexual promiscuity, alcohol abuse, excessive gambling, smoking, and drug use.

The fact is, that everyone is already doing all this stuff that is against Christian teachings, so why is it that when 2 men want to get married, suddenly we have to draw some line in the sand?

As a Christian, I will continue to support legalization of gay marriage, because it’s no worse that the other 1000 things people do daily that break Christian law.

It’s not Constitutional to force people to obey the Bible, or any other scriptural doctrine. It’s the choice of the individual to live life the way they see fit.

By: DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist Fri, 26 Aug 2011 03:09:45 +0000 Very insightful post with lots to ponder—and worry—about.

Thanks Karl.