Fresh off a formidable showing in an Iowa preference poll of 2012 Republican presidential candidates, Rep. Michele Bachmann on Sunday said that as president she would offer a federal constitutional amendment to list marriage as solely between a man and a woman.
However, the Minnesota congresswoman said it’s also up to the states to decide whether they permit same-gender marriage.
Bachmann, who has staked out much of the social conservative ground in the GOP primary race, was threading a thin needle in explaining that her views are not inconsistent on same-gender marriage. She was speaking after New York’s Legislature this weekend approved same-gender marriage, making it the sixth state to allow it.
“The states have the right to pass the laws they want to,” Bachmann told “Fox News Sunday,” adding that such an issue should really be on the ballot so that voters can decide whether same-gender marriage should be the law of the land.
“Every time it’s going on the ballot, the people have decided to keep the traditional definition,” she said. “After all, the family is the fundamental unit of government.”
But Bachmann added that it’s not a contradiction to pursue a federal constitutional amendment that would trump state law, and if she were president she would do so. A constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds vote of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states.
“It’s a high hurdle. We only have 27 amendments to the federal Constitution,” Bachmann acknowledged.
The last place, it should be decided, however, is in the courts, she added.
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
12 Responses
How about this?
§1. Recognition shall not be granted by the United States or by any constituent State or Territory to any union not comprised of one man and one woman. Recognition formerly granted to any alternate union is hereby revoked.
§2. No entity of employment hiring a number less than twenty-five persons shall be compelled to employ a person or persons of homosexual nature, and entities hiring a number greater than twenty-five persons shall be regulated by the applicable State. No institution of creed, regardless of number of persons hired, shall be compelled to accept as members or
employees persons of such nature. But regarding governmental agencies the number shall be reduced to ten, excepting the armed forces.
§3. The practice of sodomy shall be regulated by the States, provided; that no State shall apply the death penalty for offenders, and that the Fourth and Eighth articles of Amendments shall be applicable, and that no person shall be incarcerated for sodomy for more than six months.
§4. The Congress shall have power and duty to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The President shall have power and duty to enforce this article by appropriate executive actions.
§5. This article shall take effect one year following the ratification of the Amendment by the requisite three-fourths of the States.
Any opinion on the text?
Bachmann is probably the last chance this country has to avoid collapse.
There is little likelihood that the blue states will support such an amendment, and it only takes 13 states to block an amendment. In fact, few amendments have ever been approved with a strong national consensus supporting them.
One alternative might be to redefine marriage as a domestic partnership that raises children, and limit the benefits of marriage to families with children. Another alternative might be to combine a traditionally oriented definition of marriage (which include severe restrictions on divorce if children are involved) with a guarantee against government restrictions of private consensual behavior. However unless there is some indication of the country moving substantially to the right (hardly the case, no conservative presidential candidate has gotten even close to 3/5 of the vote for a generation), the liberals have no reason to compromise since, and have the votes to block a consitutional amendment.
An interesting argument is that whether same sex marriage makes it inevitable that polygamy will be approved? Also how does this affect inheritance law, which currently sets the rules on the assumption of a wife who needs to protected since she sacrifised to have and care for children?
It should be noted that Bachmann is a staunch supporter of Israel. After finishing high school Michele traveled to Israel and spent some time working on a kibbutz.
She is quoted recently speaking on israel as saying,
“I have been a long time supporter of Israel. The first time I went to Israel was the day I graduated from high school. I spent a summer working on Kibbutz Be’eri near Beer Sheva in 1974. I’ve been 4 times in Israel – 3 times as a Member of Congress. I loved Israel – from the moment I first landed.
As a young girl from Anoka, I was shocked at the level of security in Israel.
We worked on the kibbutz from 4 am to noon. We were always accompanied by soldiers with machine guns. While we were working, the soldiers were walking around looking for land mines. I really learned a lot in Israel.
I was delighted to go back as a Member of Congress, and see all the changes. To see how it has developed – it is nothing short of a miracle! To see a rose bloom in the desert. In 60 years, Israel has achieved first world, or nearly first world, status.
I am honored to be in a position where I can help Israel. I have a tremendous love for Israel, and great admiration for the Israeli people. I am a Christian, but I consider my heritage Jewish, because it is the foundation, the roots of my faith as a Christian
She is 100% right. She actually knows the constitution and is going to keep it. There is no point in making promises that go against our constitution. She clearly is against gay marriage, but a fed law against it is worth nothing. The 10th amendment makes that clear. The only way to do it properly is with an amendment which will be very hard to do.
Given that half the states had gotten rid of their sodomy laws even before Lawrence v. Texas, the proposed text is going nowhere. Even if Bachmann somehow became President, which is extremely unlikely, even a milder constitutional amendment would go nowhere as it takes 290 votes in the House and 67 in the Senate; the President has nothing to do with constitutional amendments. Bachmann is simply pandering to hee base.
You don’t like toieva marriage? How about a constitutional amendment – or a US Supreme Court ruling – voiding all government regulation of marriage – including the right to a civil, non-religious marriage – as an interference in a purely religious matter? Marriage has been, historically, a religious function. I am not sure when governments started authorizing non-religious marriages, and purporting to sanction religious marriages, but if there were no government participation in marriage, there would be no need for government to rule on marriage, no need for a same-gender marriage statute, and no equal-protection right to a same-gender marriage. This would leave the question of same-gender marriage at its source – religions. If we get the government out of the business of sanctioning marriage, would that solve the toieva marriage question?
Bush tried it.
” I am not sure when governments started authorizing non-religious marriages”
About the time of the separation of church and state.
@nfgo3:
While marriage is a historical institution, the problem is that it has real-world, practical, and financial implications. A huge amount of legislation is built around the concept of “marriage” and the state has a vested interest in creating stable home environments (or dissolving them through the legal process of divorce). Insurance, retirement, taxes, inheritance, medical decisions, child care, etc. are all affected by marital status.
As for an Amendment: it’s been tried before (Prohibition) and failed. Amendments work best when defining rights or processes, not bans. The public won’t go for it. And it is hypocritical for a “get gov’t out of our lives” Right-winger to call for Federal intervention in a State matter.
No. 9: If you are correct, that is indeed a curious coincidence. The government recognizes that it should have no role in religion, then goes into one of the religions’ main lines of business – marriage.
There have been anti-religious laws on the books of the federal and state governments for years – centuries, in fact – against bigamy and polygamy, for example. Most people adhere to religions that do not allow polygamy, and so the issue has not come to a head, although Mormons were persecuted until they changed their religion, i.e., banned polygamy. The Torah clearly permits polygamy (capped at 4 wives, I believe) and there are provisions for concubines, but those practices are not widespread among 57th-Century Jews. Would a US politician come to the defense of Jewish polygamy? Does Ms. Bachmann think the issue is a fundamental right, or something for which she can pass the buck to the voters and let a majority vote make a decision?
nfgo3: It’s Islam that has a max of four concurrent wives. AFAIK, Jews had no such limit before Rabbeinu Gershom’s takana. And we’re in the 58th century, not the 57th. Polygamy is illegal in Israel, and there’s no widespread protest against this among those not affected by Rabbeinu Gershom. Given that the Mishnaic term for co-wife is related to the word for trouble, it’s no wonder that Jews aren’t eager to embrace polygamy.