Pawlenty in Iowa: Society must ‘elevate traditional marriage’
Tuesday, February 08, 2011 at 10:26 am
- 34 Comments
IOWA CITY — Nearly every public policy issue that can be named has a direct impact on the very foundation of American society, according to former Gov. Tim Pawlenty, which is a traditional marriage consisting of one man and one woman.
Pawlenty, who told reporters before his public remarks on Monday that he is definitely “leaning toward” a 2012 presidential run, spoke on a litany of issues ranging from the economy to freedom of religion to education to health care, bringing each one back to his primary focus on the family. The remarks were made on the University of Iowa campus at the first of many lecture events featuring national conservatives hosted by The Family Leader, a state-run advocacy group that acts as an umbrella organization for the Iowa Family Policy Center and the formerly federally funded Marriage Matters.
Pawlenty began his public remarks by discussing why he believes the U.S. is a Christian nation.
“That isn’t just my editorial comment,” he said. “It’s in our founding documents.”
The basis of Pawlenty’s remarks before the public, however, were laid out to members of the press during an advance availability.
“Of course, this being for this organization (The Family Leader), these remarks will focus on things that support, maintain and enhance the family’s role in our society and culture,” Pawlenty said. “People in public office who are responsible for developing public policy have a key leadership role and responsibility to play that in regard.”
“All of us, of course, have memories and a background of our individual family situations, but more broadly than the power and impact of that is the research that shows the importance of families as the building blocks for children, and the stability that families bring to the socio-economics of children and for individuals, and the correlation between strong families and strong results in the economy and education and health and well-being.”
Pawlenty applauded Bob Vander Plaats, head of The Family Leader, for “being a champion for saying and doing, and pushing and promoting and leading efforts to try to highlight, encourage and support families.”
During the press conference, The Iowa Independent asked if Pawlenty’s discussion of families as the building blocks of society included all families as currently recognized under Iowa law, and if he agreed with Vander Plaats’ and The Family Leader’s continued advocacy to roll back marriage rights for same-sex couples.
“The Family Leader and other organizations have taken a position in favor of traditional marriage. I don’t distance myself from that position — I embrace it,” he said. “I support the notion that we, as a society, should continue to elevate traditional marriage, that it should remain as between a man and a woman, and that all other domestic relationships are not the same as traditional marriage. That’s my view. It’s not something that I’ve changed or evolved on or need to distance from because I strongly believe it.”
When he speaks about family being a cornerstone of American society, he said, he is speaking directly about marriage between a man and a woman because he not only philosophically aligns only with that perspective, but because he believes research has proven such a union to be the best possible for children and society.
“It’s not a matter of somebody’s opinion or political discourse,” Pawlenty said. “We know from research, we know from history, we know from the results that if you have an intact family with a mom and a dad that is the most nurturing environment, the most stable form of a family that gives the children the best chance of success. Not everybody can or does have that situation, but we hope that as many can as possible. We want to do things to encourage that, not discourage it. It is clear from the research that children who are in those environments are more likely to do better and be healthier and have a higher chance of success.”
When asked to name examples of the research he cited, Pawlenty said he was “speaking about children who are in households that are intact, functioning that have two parents — a mom and a dad, a traditional marriage setting — so there is a lot of research that supports that.”
The Daily Iowan then asked specifically about Zach Wahls, a current University of Iowa engineering student that was raised by two lesbians and spoke before the Iowa House in defense of marriage equality. Pawlenty admitted that there are exceptions to his rule.
“What I said … doesn’t mean that people who have other life situations or challenges or circumstances can’t be successful. That’s obviously not the case,” he said. “We have people who come from all different types of backgrounds, challenges and heartache [who achieve] — so that’s not to say that people from different situations can be successful. The point is: What kind of structure, what kind of environment is most conducive to success?”
Pawlenty said he realizes that discussion regarding same-sex marriage rights is a “hotly contested” issue in Iowa, but said he would offer no apologies for his firm belief that marriage should only be between a man and woman.
“I don’t think it is radical or extreme to say that marriage should be between a man and woman,” he said. “I don’t think that is extreme at all. That’s the way it has always been. That’s the way that society has viewed it for all of these years and centuries. So, I don’t think I’m on the extreme side of the issue.”
Pawlenty’s appearance in Iowa on behalf of The Family Leader was the first in a series of events that Vander Plaats described as “educational opportunities” for Iowans. Others expected to speak to the group’s supporters are rumored 2012 presidential hopefuls Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.
34 Comments
Comment posted February 8, 2011 @ 10:42 am
Pawlenty began his public remarks by discussing why he believes the U.S. is a Christian nation.
“That isn’t just my editorial comment,” he said. “It’s in our founding documents.”
–
I must have missed the mention of Jesus in “our founding documents”. Where is it, Mr. Pawlenty (you panderer, you)?
Comment posted February 8, 2011 @ 11:10 am
Treaty of Tripoli:
“We are in no way a Christian Nation”.
Words “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” penned by Jon Adams, a founder.
Words “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” Voted on unanimously by the Senate. Not a single descent.
Words “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” published in major newspapers of the day. Zero public outcry to the news that we are not a Christian nation.
Comment posted February 8, 2011 @ 11:50 am
Just make stuff up Tim, it will help you keep up with the other hopefuls in the primaries. General election maybe not so much. Best of luck.
Comment posted February 8, 2011 @ 2:57 pm
“Pawlenty began his public remarks by discussing why he believes the U.S. is a Christian nation.”
No he didn’t. That’s a complete fabrication.
But look how far our society has devolved where believing that marriage defined as between a man and a woman is considered an “extremist view.”
Comment posted February 8, 2011 @ 3:09 pm
I think Lynda Waddington should be required to produce that quote where Pawlenty said “the U.S. is a Christian nation.”
Comment posted February 8, 2011 @ 3:25 pm
Does Pawlenty think that gays and lesbians are all hatched from eggs or beamed down from outer space so they don’t have families? GLBT people are all part of families too, and his comments show disrespect for their families.
Pawlenty claims he was raised by a Mom and a Dad, but I can’t say I have too high an opinion of the kind of family that could raise someone like Tim Pawlenty. Obviously something went wrong there. The man has no heart.
Comment posted February 8, 2011 @ 3:29 pm
Good article, but I think you want to change one of the names around, it’s Rand Paul, not Paul Rand.
Can Tim Pawlenty ever back up his words with actual facts? I bet he even speaks in talking points when he’s home with his family.
Comment posted February 8, 2011 @ 3:33 pm
Thanks, Erika. I’ve corrected it to read Ron Paul. But if only the great Paul Rand were alive and running for the GOP nomination to run for president. Oh the nice typefaces the GOP would have…
Comment posted February 8, 2011 @ 4:16 pm
The Family Leader is an anti-gay organization that recently said same-sex marriage is more dangerous than cigarette smoking. Maybe Iowa should “just put a goddamned warning label on my marriage license.”
Not only did Pawlenty fail to cite specific research supporting his fear-mongering “What about the children?” talking points, he did a face-about when asked about Zach Wahls. It’s a wonder that he is still married to Mary who has to put up with that kind of bullshit. Wait! Maybe that’s why he spent so much time out of state these past few years …
Bah!
Comment posted February 8, 2011 @ 4:21 pm
heh heh
Following up on the smoking angle, a sarcastic comment elsewhere:
Everyone knows that same-sex marriage kills, but are there any studies out about the harmful effects of second-hand same-sex marriage?
Comment posted February 8, 2011 @ 5:02 pm
I suddenly have less respect for Governor Pawlenty, but he still beats Michele Bachmann.
Comment posted February 8, 2011 @ 5:16 pm
Hey, let me think about this for a bit. I had two loving straight parents, a straight lutheran minister who confirmed me, a straight cub scout leader, and, mostly straight teachers in school, although there was an art teacher who now that i remember him, might have been gay. So with all of this straight nurturing and teaching, why am i a reasonably well adjusted gay man? When idiots like Pawlenty start spouting all of this traditional marriage crap, i want to ask, do they know any gay folks at all? I think the answer is that they are all hypocrites who just repeat this crap to pander to the bigots and no-nothings that elect them. Pawlenty is truly pathetic, he is trying to use the backlash to gay marriage in Iowa to get a few votes.
Comment posted February 8, 2011 @ 6:29 pm
Wow, no one seems concerned that an alleged journalist included fabricated information in her story. I guess it’s close enough for the pretend press.
Comment posted February 8, 2011 @ 6:48 pm
Dennis, even for a troll you’re lame.
“We have a country that we should remember was founded under God.” That is a direct quote from our former Dear Leader. It’s also an outright lie, as the Framers specifically omitted ANY mention of any god in the Constitution.
Ms. Waddington paraphrased him correctly, and trying to pretend otherwise is merely lying and trolling.
Comment posted February 8, 2011 @ 8:38 pm
“We have a country that we should remember was founded under God.”
Don’t Jewish people worship God? Do you have to be a Christian to believe in “God?” Of course not. Allah means “God” to the muslims.
Pawlenty didn’t say “Christian nation” and never has. The alleged journalist got it wrong and should apologize for misquoting Tim Pawlenty.
Comment posted February 8, 2011 @ 9:19 pm
Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.
Comment posted February 8, 2011 @ 9:40 pm
Troll: someone who consistently kicks your ass in a debate; your intellectual superior
Comment posted February 9, 2011 @ 8:00 am
I’ve listened to the audio of Pawlenty’s speech: Lynda characterized Pawlenty’s comments accurately. While Dennis may put quotation marks around “Christian nation,” Lynda didn’t. Pawlenty did, however, say we’re a nation “founded under God.”
Comment posted February 9, 2011 @ 8:53 am
And I contend that your rabbi could also believe that we are a nation “founded under God.”
Comment posted February 9, 2011 @ 9:45 am
No, Dennis. That’s an exclusively Christian conceit.
Comment posted February 9, 2011 @ 11:16 am
Dennis,
Seeming as your intellect is very advanced maybe you already know this. However, it should be said anyway. The founding fathers were very intelligent men. They wanted a government that had politics separate from religion. Everything after the original constitution was written that has any religion in it was done by people that were doing unconstitutional things (i.e. putting “in God we trust” on our money).
There are going to be Christian themes in the Constitution because the men that wrote it lived in a Christian heavy society. However, these man also knew that many people would be coming to this country that were not Christian and they used the themes from Christianity that are very common in all religions. So our nation wasn’t founded under God, it was founded under the ideology that all religions are welcome here no matter the deity (please read the very first line of the Bill of Rights).
So please do with the information that I gave how you deem necessary, but, in a way, you were wrong.
Comment posted February 9, 2011 @ 12:09 pm
So if Pawlenty and all these “traditional marriage” nuts really want to protect the sanctity of marriage they should ban divorce and make infidelity punishable by death. That should keep the families together dammitt.
Comment posted February 10, 2011 @ 9:21 am
The “traditional marriage” definition is really a marriage defined by Christians – one male, one female, blessed by the church. Other societies , and other rational people, recognize other unions which would certainly cause raised eyebrows by American Christian fundamentalists. In my view, the problem is the fundies (~30%, or less of Americans), they are trying to impose their belief system on the rest of America. Thankfully, it is not going to succeed. Love will win!
Comment posted February 10, 2011 @ 3:33 pm
Perhaps you can name a few of these societies since the beginning of time that doesn’t recognize marriage as between a man and a woman. It seems to me that most societies in the history of this planet aren’t based on Christianity yet they have the same definition. I mean, I’m not an anthropologist so you could be right. But I doubt it.
Comment posted February 10, 2011 @ 4:06 pm
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.
The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire. These same-sex marriages were solemnized with the same ceremonies and customs which were used for heterosexual marriages. Cicero mentions the marriage (using the Latin verb for “to marry”, i.e. nubere) of the son of Curio the Elder in a casual manner as if it was commonplace. Cicero states that the younger Curio was “united in a stable and permanent marriage” to Antonius. Martial also mentions a number of gay marriages. By Juvenal’s time, gay marriages seem to have become commonplace as he mentions attending gay marriages as if there were “nothing special.” These gay marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.
Do your research the words homosexual wasn’t used till victorian times. There was gay love and unions in ancient greek times, from the time of documentation. There are 1500 speicies that show relations of same sex bondings. Not just sex act itself.
The real issue is the word sex. The fundies and special interest groups focus on the act, instead of the bond. The bond, created and needed between two people that come together in an union is defined as a marriage.
It might be condoned by certain Christian churches, but if your a babtist and are to marry a catholic you can’t do so in a catholic church. There is no difference.
Its time to stop pushing your Fundie special interest lifestyle and choice of life onto others, for Religion is a choice. Being Gay is not.
Comment posted February 10, 2011 @ 4:26 pm
the tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep. The two men were royal court manicurists who lived about 2400 B.C. in the ancient Egyptian city of Saqqara and were buried together much like a married couple. hieroglyphs, Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep’s names are strung together in a word play that mean “joined in life and joined in death.”
this was dated 2400 bc
Comment posted February 10, 2011 @ 8:59 pm
And what those few societies that you managed to uncover have in common is that they are now extinct.
Comment posted February 11, 2011 @ 12:00 am
Slog through this Dennis:
http://tinyurl.com/4aad6a3
Comment posted February 11, 2011 @ 8:48 am
All empires fall, Dennis.
We are in the midst of our Imperial fall, so it is unsurprising that there are those clinging to remnants of the time that the sun did not set on the American Empire.
Comment posted February 11, 2011 @ 12:30 pm
You wanted to know if they were here from the begin of times. Well there is proof that they were, and then of course there is proof from the last 2k years without a doubt.
So you asked for proof I gave you proof. There is not a single group of people that has not gone through a rebirth in wealth, and status. They did not “die out” they evolved, into different groups of people.
there are 1500 hundred different species that have same sex relationships and bonding. Not just sex.
Is your world flat Dennis? Would you own a slave now Dennis? those were acceptable items in the same writings that proclaimed the sin of Homosexuality in your version of your religion.
The real question I ask you, is there any possibility that you could be wrong? Your statements do not claim that thought. Therefore you think you are infallible. I am under the thought that would be the biggest sin within your version of religion yes?
To be a believer of science, and to understand and to be liberal in the sense of what the word means, to allow all thoughts to be heard and recognized is a hard leap of faith for most. For to do this, one must have the conclusion that they can be wrong, and the truth is still yet to be proven.
You can continue to have your fearful merciless, objectifying, and hateful God. I make the choice to believe that we are all part of the same pattern. Growing, and moving forward.
Comment posted February 11, 2011 @ 12:40 pm
Dennis, you seem to like fiction. Since you live in a fictional world. Read the Red Tent. I remember this novel as a biblical period piece. It took actual situations and lifestyles of those who lived in “biblical times” You will see the concubines, and slaves, and multiple wives of those who followed “one God” which was a new concept in that time.
I never understand literalism arguments, they do not believe in the concept of us evolving, but then they accept that people had thoughts and patterns and inabilities to read, write, even within the time frame of when people could document. So there is written proof therefore. The fact that we went from tent living with no technical lifestyle, to a high tech world (this one is solid proof we are evolving but perhaps you can wash away that idea as well?) The idea that God takes care of all and that is why there is no global warming, but why wouldn’t he stop every abortion and or every hungry mouth? That he created all in his Image, but then hates the images he created? That
The Christians are Christians because of the new testament, not the old. but all these cultural issues with homosexuality is an old testament idea not a new.
Its all very contradicting, but so is the bible.
Pingback posted May 10, 2011 @ 7:41 pm
[...] [...]
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
