Michele Bachmann: People Of Iowa Didn't Want Gay Marriage

GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann would turn back the clock on gay marriage in Iowa if she was elected - because that's what the people of Iowa want, she said.

The Minnesota congresswoman appeared on FOX News Sunday and said that Iowa's ruling to overturn a ban on gay marriage did not reflect the will of voters:

"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 the judges tell them what their laws are. They are not a super legislator. They are 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."

Last year Iowa voters ousted three of the seven state Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided that an Iowa law restricting marriage to a man and a woman violated the state's constitution. The unprecedented move followed a nearly three-month long campaign waged by conservative activists.

Bachmann has previously criticized the Iowa judges as "black robed masters" and praised voters for getting rid of them.

"You said enough is enough and sent them packing, and I'm very proud of what you’ve done," she told a Des Moines group of home school advocates in March. "It’s very rare that a judge does not go back to office."

Bachmann's opposition to gay marriage got her into a heated exchange with Iowa high school students last week, when she claimed that gay people have the same civil rights as all Americans.

"They can get married," Bachmann said. "But they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they're a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they're a man."

Comments

[Celtic0k9]

02:06 AM on 12/13/2011

Really, Michele? The people of Iowa didn't want Gay Marriage, huh? Is that why you had to move to Minnesota so that you could marry a homosexual to conform with what your idea is of equal rights?

[Justin Werner]

06:43 AM on 12/11/2011

So? There are more vital issues to handle than mollycoddling a bunch of unreconstructed bigots with sexuality hangups. Bachman throws gasoline on the campfire of same-sex marriage conflct, hoping to swell it to a conflagration large enough to obscure the fact that she has no ideas to help this country. None at all.

[cloacae]

11:02 AM on 12/08/2011

As an Iowan I can say that marriage equality is exactly what I want in my state. Perhaps the people that come out to Bachmann's (Van der Plaats') "debates" at a Pizza Ranch don't want marriage equality, but the state as whole seems fairly proud to consistently be part of a positive progression.

[Janette Ozoa]

01:44 AM on 12/07/2011

Her statement that gays can get married as long as it's with someone of the opposite sex is incredibly laugh-worthy in relation to the idea that preventing same sex marriage is the same thing as protecting the sanctity of marriage. Ok.. so we're encouraging people to marry based on genitals as opposed to feelings. Is she trying to say that marriage sanctity is based on penis and vagina interaction and not love?

[Kai Wen Lee]

01:53 AM on 12/09/2011

Exactly. Historically, people have married for many reasons - economic, political, social status, even, occasionally for love, but love has, save in the past century or so, been far down the list.

The state has always had a vested interest in regulating and protecting marriage, an interest which has little to do with love. The state's interest lies in protecting the family, the fundamental building block of society. How one defines family and it's relation to society is at the root of the debate, not people's feelings.

[mostberg]

01:20 PM on 12/09/2011

You had asked for still more elaboration on my opinion. First of all you still mischaracterize where I stand. I have opposed gay marriage but not gay unions of one sort or another. That gay marriage opens the door to all kinds of other couple variations is logical whether people want to just ignore it or not. In fact I have had in the past near where I lived couples who I thought were married, but were brother and sister. Their life style is their choice and rightlly so. What they do in their home is none of my business. Most of us do not go around making a big deal about our sexuality. I do not think their getting married is appropriate thogh.
I do get weary of so much focus on gays to the exclusion of much bigger and more important issues. For example, it seems that every discussion of bullying ends up with a gay example. Anyone who has ever been bullied who is not gay - like me as a child - should take offense about that. We say: Are gays the only ones that matter?? What about the rest of us? That is the context of where I am in my thinking: too much focus on one group to the exclusion of everyone else and other and bigger issues. That is about their selfishness and has nothing to do with "homophobia". Look it us. It fits very, very few people on that subject.

[VicF]

02:28 PM on 12/09/2011

The courts are missing a basic fact. That marriage is an institution of reproduction. It is to ensure a bond to raising kids. Also missing is documentation of what children report about being raised by gay parents.

[Robbert Bricker]

01:30 PM on 12/06/2011

she opens her mouth and the first things she does is lie...

"marriage, historically, for all human history has been between a man and a woman."

not at all true especially when it comes to the abrahamic faiths... traditionally, marriage is one man and several women who were merely property and breeding machines... oh and lets not forget concubines. maybe is she wasn't so busy trying to marry gay boys in school she would have learned something of importance.

[Sabra Bruning]

01:24 PM on 12/06/2011

To Robbert Bricker

As for your comment on obsession with anal sex, that wasn't the point.

My reply to you: ALL engage in that which is forbidden, sir. And not because God is some uber-party pooper.

[Robbert Bricker]

02:09 PM on 12/06/2011

forbidden? by who? a 4000 year old mythological deity?

not because your deity is an uber-party pooper as you put it, rather, your deity is a myth... a fable.

[Robbert Bricker]

02:22 PM on 12/06/2011

forbidden? by who? a 4000 year old deity?

[FaithIsIgnorance]

08:02 AM on 12/06/2011

What the people of Iowa want doesn't matter. This is why we have a constitution and the bill of rights: To protect minorities from a majority. IN this case the XTian majority who are nothing but a bunch of regressive petty uninformed schoolyard bullies.

[Mindy Czech]

02:23 AM on 12/06/2011

She is truly one of the scariest, most evil politicians I have ever seen in my lifetime. I fear for an America with her at the helm.

[Justin Werner]

07:02 AM on 12/11/2011

Be at ease, because she will -never- be at the helm of this nation. Unfortunately, this just means that the evil ones that are *smarter* than she is (pretty much all of them) have a chance to grab the wheel. :-( Please don't forget to vote (preferably for someone sane).

[MoralPolice]

09:08 PM on 12/05/2011

this woman I went to high school with and her now wife fought for Iowa to get gay marriage. They took it all the way to the judges that eventually ruled in favor of gay marriage. The people protesting were not able to make a case that wasn't based on prejudice, hate, and stereotype. They in fact have not been able to make the same case against Prop 8 in California. New York broke the iceberg for the rights of LGBT everywhere, and it will continue to trickle into society until it is no longer and issue. These people who claim to be "Christian" are the same one who are trying to buy politicians off in favor of their hate. It is despicable that we are even, as human beings, having discussions on such moot points as "right to marry" and "marriage is historically between one man and one woman." It has also been historical for laws to be changed and made current. Once people realize that this is not an issue of sexual identity, but rather an issue of hate, then and only then can we move forward and put this behind us and move on to things that really matter: jobs, housing, world population, and EDUCATING OUT CHILDREN.

[mostberg]

10:20 PM on 12/05/2011

Your rather pompous and judgemental answer opens the door to changing just about any traditional value or rule. We could, for example, open the door for marriage of: siblings, cousins, parents to children, group marriage, marriage to multiple partners. The derivations are nearly endless and could also go under "equal protection" guidelines. That door is now wide open. We have traditions and rules against murder, theft, and child abuse. We could change those too.. Traditons mostly survive because they make sense for protection of all of us. Any change should be very carefully done and considered at length

[MoralPolice]

12:02 AM on 12/06/2011

now you are just being idiotic...

[cheo]

03:53 AM on 12/06/2011

Gateway marriages!!! OMG. Where WILL it all lead?

How about nowhere except more acceptance of the way people are created, no matter how you believe they get created?

There was a time when the same paranoia was held about mixed-race marriages. Did it destroy the "institution" of marriage? Nope.

[Mandi 007]

06:01 PM on 12/05/2011

Historically, slavery has also been widely acceptable. No room for change, eh Michelle?

[Joel Redman]

08:22 PM on 12/05/2011

She would bring that back as well. After all, the bible says it's not only ok, it's required.

[Vanishing point]

09:21 PM on 12/05/2011

or hope!

[PowerBelongsToPeople]

05:50 PM on 12/05/2011

Bachman follows the same mentality that many Republicans - a judge disagreeing with his/her opinion is "judicial activism."

By the way, I always wonder: what is the "original intent of the Constitution"? How can anyone in 2011 know or assume?

The founding fathers had no context for many of the issues that we talk about today: gay marriage, free speech on the Internet, etc. The point isn't to assume what they would have said specifically about the topic - it's about taking the VALUES of the Constitution and applying it to modern-day issues.

[Curtis Scarbrough]

08:41 PM on 12/05/2011

F&F

[Vanishing point]

09:20 PM on 12/05/2011

Well unlike Pelosi , YOU READ IT !

[brittany mclean]

11:07 AM on 12/06/2011

What about Michelle Bachman she is married to a Gay man Marcus Bachman if he is straight I would not want to see a gay one.

[Sabra Bruning]

05:31 PM on 12/05/2011

@Jerry Callaio~ You wrote: "What will destroy our country and the world is religious folks who "think"...(I use the term loosely).....like you! "

To which I respond in the words of Patrick Henry, “Orator of the Revolution”….”Our nation was not founded by religionists but by Christians; not on religion but on the gospel of Jesus Christ”. Best regards.

[Trekkinbob]

06:18 PM on 12/05/2011

To which I respond with President John Adams statement made in the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, that refutes your belief that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. It wasn't and never has been a "Christian nation." The United States was founded as a democratic republic which is neutral on the subject of religion as indicated also by the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution -

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

[myakkakat]

09:01 PM on 12/05/2011

F &F! Spot on!

[Vanishing point]

09:21 PM on 12/05/2011

LMAO!

[myakkakat]

09:30 PM on 12/05/2011

Sabra, we understand that you don't like homosexuality. What you apparently do not understand is that our Founding Fathers made a point of putting a separation of Church and State in our Constitution for a reason. That is to keep one religion from creating laws based upon their beliefs that are NOT the beliefs of others. We have freedom of religion in this country but when one religion tries to force its beliefs on others through law then you are removing freedom from others.

The statement "All men are created equal" is not followed with "EXCEPT FOR". That means all individuals are equal and should be under the laws of this country.

If you don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex but do not force your beliefs on others. Jesus taught and lived tolerance. That is a truly Christian belief. Why don't you practice a little of that tolerance yourself?

Ps. I'm a straight woman who believes in equality for all and I am also a Christian.

[josie klapper]

05:20 PM on 12/05/2011

Let me guess, she practices what she preached about gay people being able to get married to other gay people, as long as they were of the opposite sex... Not sure about her (GAWD I hope NOT!!!) but Mr Marcus requires a fire hydrant....

[JonW]

05:20 PM on 12/05/2011

So often when folks speak the loudest against a particular mnority,deep down they really wish to be part of that minority. This could be in Frau Bachman's case or maybe she's just a narrowminded , ignorant throwback to another age.! certainly not presidential timbre!

[Robbert Bricker]

12:59 PM on 12/06/2011

she is just worried that big, overgrown, homo she is married to is gonna come out and leave her.

[keibord]

05:17 PM on 12/05/2011

""They (gays) can get married," Bachmann said. "But they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they're a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they're a man."

Yes, so do like she did and marry a gay man...Point taken Michelle!