Bachmann pauses in Iowa tour to talk 'myth' of Kinsey Report
December 18th, 2011
06:45 PM ET
7 years ago

Bachmann pauses in Iowa tour to talk 'myth' of Kinsey Report

Clarion, Iowa (CNN) - Republican presidential contender Michele Bachmann continued her super-charged bus tour across Iowa Sunday, attending several more events to shake hands and sign autographs.

Her events have been largely of the meet-and-greet variety - get in and out as fast as she can. The campaign has instituted a "no questions" policy at a majority of her stops this weekend to keep things moving, and that generally applies to both the media and to Iowa voters.

But at her stop at a north central Iowa Pizza Ranch restaurant, she and her husband Marcus were met with a woman wearing a Bachmann sticker who was holding a sign that read: "Gay-friendly Iowan."

"I was wondering if you would sign my sign?" the woman wearing the sticker, who identified herself as Kathy Schnell, asked.

"Gay-friendly Iowan?" Bachmann asked with a small laugh as she signed her name.

Schnell thanked her and followed it with a question that, in reality, was more of a comment.

"I wonder if you're aware that 10% of the population is gay. And if you have 28 children, then 2.8 of those kids are very likely gay."

The congresswoman, within definite earshot as she hovered over Schnell, at first seemed to avoid the question, trying to say "hello" to someone new.

Schnell turned to her friend and said, "She's not listening to me."

Bachmann must have heard that because she then turned back.

"Well, that's according to the Kinsey Report," the candidate replied.

Dr. Alfred Kinsey is best known for conducting interviews with thousands of individuals and publishing his findings in books on human sexual behavior during the 1940s and '50s.

Bachmann's husband, who runs a clinic in their district in Minnesota that has long been accused of conducting "reparative therapy" by trying to help gay individuals become straight, then chimed in.

"Your facts are wrong," he said.

"That's not valid?" Schnell asked back.

"No it isn't," Michele Bachmann said. Her husband added, "No, it's not at all. It's been a myth for many years."

The presidential hopeful then moved to the next table. Schnell pulled off her Bachmann sticker.

Schnell later told CNN she is a Democrat who is not happy with the current Democratic administration and the Democrats in Washington.

Asked if she was surprised Bachmann signed her poster, Schnell said no.

"I think she wants to be a very nice person," Schnell said. "She's adorable. But I just don't think she should be our president."

Schnell wasn't the only one in the room passionate about gay rights. A handful of college students were also on hand in the restaurant at the time, but did not try to raise a question. After the event, however, the group stood outside waving rainbow flags, a common symbol of gay rights support.

Quentin Hill, an 18-year-old student at the University of Iowa, said he wanted to ask her a question as she worked the room but was told ahead of time not to.

"They weren't taking questions today. I asked one of her staffers and I was kind of shut down as soon as I started asking," Hill said, adding that he wanted to ask her about the issue of gay teen suicides.

"I think if you want to be president of the United States, first of all you have to realize that you are representing all Americans including gay Americans and secondly you should be able to answer questions," Hill said.

"If you want my vote, I want to know what you stand for. So I think it's unfortunate that she comes and shakes hands and signs some signs and thinks she's going to get votes out of that."

Also see:

Huntsman: Everyone gets 15 minutes of fame

Paul claims Bachmann 'hates' Muslims

S.C. governor rallies crowd for Romney

Filed under: 2012 • Gay rights • Iowa • Michele Bachmann
soundoff (530 Responses)
  1. dontletthefactsscareyou

    I'm not fan of Bachman, but she's right here. The Kinsey report was groundbreaking at the time, but the 10% figure has not held up by other studies. Remember, scientific studies have to be repeatable. Most other studies have found the number to be between 1 – 3 percent, but growing.

    December 19, 2011 11:11 am at 11:11 am |
  2. James

    Uh, Mark – 10% of 300 is 30, not 90 – but leave it to the Republicans to ignore facts, make up their own truths, skew history, mis-interpret the Bible – then try to jam it down all our of throats as reality. Anyone who votes Republican is truly not an American – but rather a modern day Neo-Nazi who thinks American should be populated by nothing else but white, Christians. I see a civil war in our future.

    December 19, 2011 11:12 am at 11:12 am |
  3. betterdays

    90% of the population is straight. In politics, that constitutes a "mandate" (which is a rather inappropriate term under the circumstances).

    December 19, 2011 11:18 am at 11:18 am |

    If it weren't for Gay Rights and Women's rights, these Republicans have nothing else to talk! They always use these two subjects to get attention! I wonder if all they think about is sex sex sex! What is it that they seem determined to get in our bedrooms?

    December 19, 2011 11:19 am at 11:19 am |
  5. Mudfoot

    The Kinsey report is a perfect example of science gone stupid. It's about as credible as Freud. People need to wake up and STUDY for themselves instead of mindlessly repeating foolish lies. 10% gay???? What a load of bs.

    December 19, 2011 11:19 am at 11:19 am |
  6. Anchorite

    Clearly, the Kinsey Report is a scientific document, which is flawed, unlike the totally-pulled-out-of-the-air theories of Michelle Bachmann, some of which are backed up by an ancient triple translated text of unknown authorship, which is unassailable.

    December 19, 2011 11:20 am at 11:20 am |
  7. Frank

    FYI, homosexuality has been observed in 1500 species of animals so far. These species can have sex with no "moral" issues so it is clear that it is in some sense natural, possibly nature's way of providing genetic diversity-as most people know (not Bachmann of course), some species can switch sex for reproduction purposes.

    December 19, 2011 11:20 am at 11:20 am |
  8. George

    It absolutely is a myth. To actually believe that 1 in 10 people loses traction in the face of reality. Look around you (unless you live in NYC or LA). Maybe, MAYBE, 1 OR 2 % tops. And those people CHOSE to be 'gay'. Got it?

    December 19, 2011 11:20 am at 11:20 am |
  9. jim

    the actual percentage is unimportant. what IS important is that homosexuals do exist and they are an oppressed minority. and, just like any other minority, they should be accorded the same rights and privileges the majority enjoys.

    December 19, 2011 11:23 am at 11:23 am |
  10. Jeff

    I think heterosexuals are a myth also. There is no proof. There is no proof of evolution either.

    December 19, 2011 11:24 am at 11:24 am |
  11. Rob

    1/10 of the population gay? No. Sorry. What if the number was 3% or 5%? What does that change? The only thing it changes is the perception that gays are a powerful voting bloc, which they are not. They are a vocal voting bloc, but not a large one.

    December 19, 2011 11:24 am at 11:24 am |
  12. Todd

    Another fine example of the American public’s ignorance or idiocy. Regardless of your view on the issue, the Kinsey report has long been recognized as having serious sampling errors, e.g. one third of sample from prison population for sex crimes (including rape, pedophilia or had been abused themselves) , or its observations, e.g. "The average female is not aroused by nearly so many stimuli as is the male, and finds much less sexual excitement in psychic associations or in any sensory stimulation outside of the purely tactile." Scientists have tried to duplicate Kinsey's findings and failed. Perhaps his most famous statistic is that between 10% and 36% of men are homosexual. Subsequent studies have found the actual number really closer to 1- 3%. While the report is important for opening the discussion it is deeply flawed and even damaging because it has opened up other areas without the appropriate caveats, similar to Freud’s therapy techniques which were taken out of context to be acceptable behaviors.

    December 19, 2011 11:25 am at 11:25 am |
  13. Dicky

    "The campaign has instituted a "no questions" policy at a majority of her stops this weekend to keep things moving..."
    Chris why should you as a reporter assign a motive to the policy? Did they tell you it was to keep things moving? If so, how about some quotes, if not. don't say. It seems at least as plausible that they are not taking questions so as to avoid the type of (reasonable) confrontation that follows, in which case the meet and greet is a sham, and a cowardly one at that.

    December 19, 2011 11:28 am at 11:28 am |
  14. bcm

    How can you run for president and take no questions from the public or the media? This woman is so scary. How could anyone even consider voting for her (and her husband.)

    December 19, 2011 11:29 am at 11:29 am |
  15. DaveC

    First of all, Bachmann knows she has no chance at president. Second, she should be seriously worried about keeping her congressional seat. She almost lost last time and this time is facing a very serious challenger and a disgusted group of voters in her district. Hopefully her district will vote her out and we will be rid of this menace once and for all (of course we thought that of Santorum too).

    December 19, 2011 11:29 am at 11:29 am |
  16. Dennis

    I don't think we have enough scientific proof of why people are inclined to do whatever they do. Human Biology is not a predictive science. Recently a study found that individuals spending alot of time playing video games have adaptive changes in their Brains. We all want our position justified but just because we wish to rationalize doesn't make it true.
    Condemnation of a persons position on an issue is not a virtue. Letting all be free to choose their life coarse is. Acceptance and tolerance is a two way street, you cannot accept anothers position without condemnation then you are as intolerant as you accuse them of being.

    December 19, 2011 11:32 am at 11:32 am |
  17. David M

    "If you want my vote, I want to know what you stand for....."

    You need to clarify that statement. I think what you really mean is you want to know where she stands only on gay issues. Voters who are 'one issue' voters are too lazy to see what else the candidates are saying. Like it or not, 'gay issues' are not the most pressing things government needs to be concerned with. You are way down the line of priorities.

    December 19, 2011 11:36 am at 11:36 am |
  18. Questioner

    A candidate has only so many hours in a day, and he or she has to stay on schedule. He or she can't personally answer everyone's questions on a one-on-one basis. Also, Michele Bachmann knows that everything she says is likely to be taken out of context, twisted around, misinterpreted, and used to "prove" that she said something that she didn't say, and that she holds positions that she doesn't hold. A case in point, Ron Paul saying that she "hates" Muslims, and Jay Leno saying "Oh, that's not good." Michele Bachmann doesn't hate Muslims. She does, however, believe that we need to take seriously the threat of terrorism. That's not the same thing as hating Muslims. No wonder she's reluctant to answer controversial questions.

    December 19, 2011 11:37 am at 11:37 am |
  19. Pest

    Whether or not the Kinsey report is accurate, it's a lot more factual than the mythological text that people like Bachmann hold in such high regard. If only they would scrutinize things equally...

    December 19, 2011 11:38 am at 11:38 am |
  20. Seriously?

    It does not matter how many gay people there are in the US... if she wants to be President, she needs to be President for ALL Americans... not just the ones she chooses.

    December 19, 2011 11:39 am at 11:39 am |
  21. Gary in Tampa

    damn...I wish 10% of the population were actually gay- maybe I'd get more action then! But sadly Mrs. Bachman and her (IMO very gay husband) are right...the Kinsey report is old, outdated, and incorrect. More recent studies place it at 5-7%. Not sure how it matters if it's 2% or 20% though.

    December 19, 2011 11:39 am at 11:39 am |
  22. jim k

    Even Kinsey admitted that 10% was probably too high a number, given the population he used for the study could have skewed the outcome. His point however was that there were dramatically more homosexuals in society than people were willing to admit. History since that study has proven that Kinsey's findings are not a myth.

    The real myth is believing someone who is married is heterosexual. It is a myth Bachman clings to.

    December 19, 2011 11:40 am at 11:40 am |
  23. wgrep

    why is it that by your own numbers (10% gay) by looking at all the press on gayness one would think that 9 out of 10 were gay! and that all legislation should favor gayness when in reality the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few! nuff said

    December 19, 2011 11:40 am at 11:40 am |
  24. J Houze

    Recent US census data proves that the 10 percent fugure was not grounded in science. It would mean there are roughly 31 million gay/lesbians in the U.S., and the census data shows around 650k plus same sex couples co-habitating (this includes gay and straight). If you then compare that ot the number of single and straight co-habitating couples, you cannot get close to 35 million. Possibly 5-6 million, but more likely around 3 million, and that is being generous with the stats. One percent is more accurate, so the report is wrong by a factor of TEN. In other words, not a myth, but meaningless
    BTW, I am not at all against gays/lesbians- I only take exception with a report that is decades old and has other dubious conclusions within it.

    December 19, 2011 11:42 am at 11:42 am |
  25. patsj

    "Your Facts Are Wrong". Wow. That says so much about MB's mindset.

    December 19, 2011 11:43 am at 11:43 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22