2012 Election | Gay Marriage | Iowa | Michelle Bachmann | News | Republican Party

Michele Bachmann Rips Iowa Judges Over Same-Sex Marriage: VIDEO


On FOX News Sunday yesterday, Chris Wallace showed Michele Bachmann the clip in which she was confronted over same-sex marriage by a Waverly, Iowa student.

Asked Wallace: "Same-sex marriage is legal in Iowa, so does that mean it's all right?"

Reponded Bachmann:

"No, I don't believe that it is. Marriage, historically, for all human history has been between a man and a woman. It hasn't been the same-sex marriage. And remember that in Iowa, it was judges that made the decision, not the legislature, which are the people's representatives, and certainly not the people. That's why the people of Iowa threw out three of those Supreme Court judges. That's something that should give pause to all judges. The people of Iowa are sick and tired of having judges tell them what their laws are. They're not a super-legislature. They're judges. And they need to act like judges. As President of the United States I will only appoint judges that will apply the strict construction or the original intent of the Constitution of the United States."

Watch the clip (gay stuff starts at 10:40), AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Glad we don't have to worry about her ever being president. She'd drag us back to the stone age.

    Posted by: johnny | Dec 5, 2011 7:49:17 AM

  2. Well, she's is simply wrong on this - same-sex marriage was quite common in Rome until 342 AD - and then bannned as part of the 'offical' switch to Christianity.

    But then - Mrs. Bachman is wrong on a lot of things.

    Posted by: Wolfgang | Dec 5, 2011 7:52:18 AM

  3. I am SO tired of their lies about what marriage has 'always' been. Time and again it's pointed out to them, yet they repeat the same crap. Even during the Senate hearings it was pointed out by Al Franken that marriage has had numerous definitions.. he asked them which they would choose..

    Posted by: deryk | Dec 5, 2011 7:56:19 AM

  4. I'm tired of their intentional ignorance of the role the Judiciary branch plays in the U.S. (unless, of course, the judges make decisions in their favor).

    Posted by: AggieCowboy | Dec 5, 2011 8:08:11 AM

  5. According to Michele's logic, women shouldn't be allowed to vote. After all, it wasn't in the original intent of the Constitution.

    Posted by: jason | Dec 5, 2011 8:09:04 AM


    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Dec 5, 2011 8:17:43 AM

  7. Hey Michele...go back to MN and take care of those IMAGINARY 23 Foster kids...(all girls..hmm, wonder why?) ...Oh yea...cause Boys would have Tempted Marcus.

    Posted by: Gay American | Dec 5, 2011 8:25:49 AM

  8. Gay American,


    Posted by: jason | Dec 5, 2011 8:37:01 AM

  9. @David

    You should care what she thinks, because people are listening to her and agreeing with her. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, and doing nothing to counter poison like hers only makes you part of the problem. By ignoring it you're basically giving people like her permission to spread their hate, IMO.

    More on topic: I don't think this flake understands the role of a judge at all.

    Posted by: Bravo | Dec 5, 2011 8:39:03 AM

  10. it's cute how she actually still thinks she has a chance to become President.

    Posted by: Joe | Dec 5, 2011 8:41:45 AM

  11. There should be more countering information here. Sound scholarship on same sex marriage can easily be founr on line. It includes common references from ancient Egypt, classical Greece and Rome, Medieval Europe, from Asia and Japn as well as from many tribal groups, including those among native Americans, from Africa and Pacific islanders, In fact in the total history of humanity it is far more commonplace than at present. Only the dominance of Western culture and late forms of Christianity have brought about its prohibition. What is powerfully interesting is that same-sex marriage is now reviving through the Western democratic weight of preference, protest and politics. It is "natural" history reasserting itself.

    Posted by: uffda | Dec 5, 2011 8:44:44 AM

  12. No, she's a trained lawyer. Who thinks it makes great politics to rail against judges where she doesn't like the results of their decisions. Per our Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803):

    "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

    So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

    Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law [e.g., the statute or treaty].
    This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions."

    5 U.S. at 177–78.

    Posted by: Ziggy | Dec 5, 2011 8:55:02 AM

  13. Why are crazy people allowed to have so much airtime on national television? She doesn't stand a chance of winning. And no one (except for a handful of evangelical wingnuts) believes that God told her to run. So what gives?

    Posted by: Gigi | Dec 5, 2011 9:04:15 AM

  14. She can tip toe her dance all she wants but the fact remains she was preaching about how marriage was only between a man and a woman while she was standing in Iowa where gay marriage is legal. People like her would be more than happy to flip the gas chamber switch if there were a bunch of gays and lesbians inside of it. She is EXACTLY what's wrong with America.

    Posted by: Michael | Dec 5, 2011 9:13:15 AM

  15. And there's disgusting Wallace serving up a perfect softball question for Bachman to rip into. I'm sure his respected journalist father would be so proud of his son's selling out his integrity to work for Fox.

    Posted by: Patrick Wellington III | Dec 5, 2011 9:25:30 AM

  16. As the president... still unable to face the reality. Go back to your husband and stay there.

    Posted by: Matt26 | Dec 5, 2011 9:34:58 AM

  17. She gets so many things wrong in one statement it's hard to know where to begin. The IA judges were doing what they were supposed to do: judging a case. (And it was a unanimous decision by conservative judges.) They were acting exactly like judges. Her threat that judges should think twice about making decisions that might be unpopular with the political whims of the times shows deliberate ignorance of the role of the judiciary. But that's all to be expected from her, and her use of the words "as President" is as much a sham as her marriage.

    The worse thing here--and yet not surprising--is that Wallace asks the question, then doesn't follow up, allowing her ignorance to go unchallenged.

    Posted by: Ernie | Dec 5, 2011 10:24:46 AM

  18. Delusions of Grandeur...an unbalanced women if there ever was one.

    Posted by: Tagg2 | Dec 5, 2011 11:34:07 AM

  19. "Historically, for all human history," can someone remind Michelle and the Radical Right that historically, for all human history, slavery was approved, sanctioned and even taxed by governments to bring revenue into nations (including the United States of America.) Historically, the United States was Last Western Nation to abolish slavery. Hell, Russia freed their serfs before we freed our slaves. Just because mankind "has always" done something is no logical reason to continue oppression and discrimination.

    Posted by: Rick | Dec 5, 2011 11:57:14 AM

  20. if she doesn't like gay marriage she shouldn't have married a gay man.

    Posted by: paulreitzphoto | Dec 5, 2011 2:02:30 PM

  21. Oh man, how slimy, dishonest and deliberately misleading this woman can be! Judges, striking down laws based on Constitutionality, is their JOB!! They protect those without political power, they protect the letter and spirit of the law, they protect any entity that can be threatened by unjust laws with their knowledge of the legal system, their discretion and precedent. STOP trying to corrupt the legal system by encouraging people to overthrow the judges who act with a CONSCIENCE, and actually follow the law. AND MARRIAGE IS NOT AND WAS NEVER EXCLUSIVELY 1 MAN + 1 WOMAN!!!! Someone needs to tap her on her shoulder pads and tell her 'um, that's wrong too, you wild-eyed maniac.' Take ONE anthropology class and you will see what I mean. She lives only in her demented, Fundy Xtian bubble, with no real understanding or regard for anyone outside of it. Few, glad I got that off my chest....

    Posted by: A.P. | Dec 5, 2011 4:43:10 PM

  22. Hmmm. So I guess it is ok in NY, since the people's representatives passed it here. Stupid, ignorant Beard.

    Posted by: ChrisQ | Dec 5, 2011 5:09:12 PM

  23. Her eyelashes are attacking her.

    Posted by: DC | Dec 5, 2011 5:36:12 PM

  24. Michele Bachmann and her husband are both very far out. Not good for the U.S. She is running on her own “gay agenda” platform. We are closing schools, laying people off. Families are being foreclosed on and being put out in the streets. And all this Republican running for President and her husband can do is talk about is “praying away the gay”. It is a good money maker for her, but we have bigger things to do, and I am hopping God has too. If you or your church has the gay agenda on your mind, all the time you may need to set down and talk with someone. We need to start looking at what is best for the country. Not our own religion’s views, that blow in the wind.

    Posted by: cb | Dec 5, 2011 10:03:37 PM

  25. "Gay marriage" is an oxymoron, since marriage means "a permanent union between one woman and man."
    For 5000 years, "marriage" has meant "a contract between one man and one woman", not some other random combination of humans because it feels good. That definition of marriage is the bedrock of human society. MB's response meant that society should not endorse gay marriage by giving it the high status of "marriage". Ignore the perverted and false "interpretations" of her comments by gay media bloggers. She remains the most principled Constitutional Conservative on the American political stage.
    This was a particularly moronic screed on MB's commonsense response and instruction to clueless gay activist students. The radical left, gay media no longer even pretends to report political news but instead feeds us radical left gay propaganda.
    The same argument for "gay marriage" is equally valid (and equally invalid) for 1 man-2 women and for ; 2 women-1 man; etc. The logical extension of allowing "gay marriage" is legalizing polygamy.

    Posted by: Derek Wain | Dec 5, 2011 11:27:29 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «U.S. Postal Service Announces Snail Mail Will Get Slower« «