The report begins: "On Sunday, GOP presidential contender Rep. Michele Bachmann reiterated calls for a federal constitutional amendment which would overturn New York state's new law legalizing gay marriage and similar laws in other states."

Michele Bachmann addressing the Republican Leadership Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 06/17/11. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Bachmann Would Overturn NY, All Gay Marriage

By Meghashyam Mali, The Hill

26 June 11

n Sunday, GOP presidential contender Rep. Michele Bachmann said she would support a federal constitutional amendment which would overturn New York state's new law legalizing gay marriage and similar laws in other states.

On Fox News Sunday, Rep. Bachmann reiterated calls for an amendment that would define marriage as "between a man and woman."

Rep. Bachmann claimed that while New York's new law approving same-sex marriages which was signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Friday was "up to the people of New York", the debate over defining marriage was "a state issue and a federal issue." She added that "federal law will trump state law on this issue."

"States have, under the 10th Amendment, the right to pass any law they like. Also, federal officials at the federal level have the right to also put forth a constitutional amendment", said Bachmann.

She said her support for states' rights as well as a federal amendment was "entirely consistent".

In a New Hampshire debate for 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls on June 13, Bachmann had been asked about a state law allowing gay people to marry. At that forum she said "I do believe in the 10th amendment and I do believe in self-determination for the states."

While it was "best to let the people decide" by placing marriage amendments on the ballot, Bachmann argued the split in state rulings and the federal government's interest in the issue compelled a federal amendment to resolve the debate.

"One thing that we do know on marriage, this issue will ultimately end up in the courts, in the Supreme Court. I do not believe the judges should be legislating from the bench," said Bachmann.

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

+179 # Diane Johnson 2011-06-26 09:50

someone should make bumper stickers that say YOUR church is not MY government

+122 # mangek 2011-06-26 10:37

I would change this to

"Your church is not our government."

+19 # CL38 2011-06-26 22:03

Diane and mangek, this is a GREAT slogan-says it all in just a few words. I hope you send it to Democratic organizations. It would catch on like wildfire and make a great bumper sticker, for the upcoming election.

+37 # Heather Cariou 2011-06-26 11:14

Love it!

+10 # Beth Sager 2011-06-26 14:40

They do have those. Check them all out at Northern Sun. They Have left and environmental t-shirts, stickers, and bumper stickers. If they don't have a phrase, you can suggest something. I order from them for all my left friends.

+15 # Monica Ackerman 2011-06-26 21:05

I love the idea of bumper stickers but am always afraid some religious zealot will take out their stupidity on my car. Another good source for unique logos is evolvefish.com. They have a "No Bible Thumpers" magnetic sign which I attached to my screen door and which keeps the Witnesses and other riff-raff from knocking on my door. Of course, the large blue Keep Abortion Legal sticker from Planned Parenthood on my front window also helps deter those unwanted religious nuts.

-13 # Johann 2011-06-28 10:24

Quoting

someone should make bumper stickers that say YOUR church is not MY government

How about "Keep your homosexual corruption out of our government"

+5 # billy bob 2011-06-28 18:11

What is "homosexual corruption"?

+2 # cabotool 2011-06-30 04:56

typically, those who hate something have it buried somewhere within them self.

+3 # Martin Russell 2011-06-30 08:36

You can make your own bumper stickers at zazzle.com. It's easy, cheap and entertaining.

+102 # cydfan 2011-06-26 09:58

So...let me get this straight. When it comes to abortion, states need to tell the government to but out and let them set their own agenda even thought the Supreme Court has ruled on it. When it comes to marriage, which is not a guaranteed constitutional right, she wants the Federal government to step in and make the ignorant states look to Big Brother to find the error of their ways. Is that it? Oh and if judges didn't legislate from the bench as she calls it, we never would have had GWB in the first place.

+37 # MidwestTom 2011-06-26 10:05

I am afraid that this simply emphasizes the difference between the the two coasts and the center of the country. The country is dividing over immigration issues, religious issues, and over liberal versus conservative issues in general. Multiple Center states have passed laws against abortion, against illegal immigration, and against public employee unions. We are no longer a united on almost any topic. Bachmann could possibly carry 10 to 20 states in the center, but none on the coasts.

+52 # Progressive Patriot 2011-06-26 11:00

You fail to recognize that the voters of many of those "center states" are realizing that the ReTHUGliklan idiots they elected in 2010 HATE THEM. the popular momentum is swinging the other way, and either many voters will vote against the ReTHUGs or they will simply stay home.

+19 # Beth Sager 2011-06-26 14:49

I am from East TN. My husband and I were eating in KFC today. Many people were eating lunch after church. The couple sitting behind me were having a conversation about the NY law. The man said, "It's happening, Louise! They're taking control. I'm talking about that law they passed in NY. It's disgraceful!" He said this with fury and fear.

+16 # billy bob 2011-06-26 19:47

You live in Tennessee and you were eating at KENTUCKY fried chicken?

It's happening! The Kentucky fried chickens are taking over!

+6 # Beth Sager 2011-06-27 07:10

Yep, I reckun dey have Tucky Fried in every state nowadays, Billy Bob! Actually, I opted for the healthier alternative-grilled.

+4 # Progressive Patriot 2011-06-29 02:28

What are you, unAmerican, that you'd eat grilled instead of Kentucky Fried? ;-})

+1 # Beth Sager 2011-07-01 10:47

Actually, I didn't have a choice-they were out of original. I really like the greasy, unhealthy stuff, but the grilled is okay.

+2 # giraffee2012 2011-06-26 19:32

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/194-194/6384-congressman-calls-for-investigation-of-clarence-thomas

Vote 2012 - register now + get mail=in ballot (especially if gov of ur state is GOP/TP)

+100 # RNF123 2011-06-26 10:08

Let me make this very clear. Like Bachmann, I am also an attorney with over forty years of experience and her interpretation of the Tenth Amendment is clearly erroneous. The States cannot do "anything" they want to do. Only those matters that have not been directly or indirectly provided to the Federal Government subject to the constitutionali ty of such acts. If this were true, we would have fifty states with fifty different laws and mass confusion. The Federal government has both enumerated rights (specifically stated) and implied rights as well. They have historically controlled areas of social security, air safety, drug safety, Medicare and other fields that are not stated in the Constitution but are considered to be part of the General Welfare clause and the necessary and proper clauses of the US Constitution. It does not take a wizard to understand that the States cannot do anything they want to do. This Amendment was to allow the States to pass legislation in areas that were not assumed by the federal government as long as they did not conflict with the Constitution, it did not mean that every State can do whatever they please. This is the new, revised interpretation of the Tenth Amendment by the Conservative movement but it is not the correct law.

+58 # BankStreet 2011-06-26 11:53

I assume, RNF, that you (unlike Ms Bachman) went to a *real* law school. That might go some distance toward explaining your clearer understanding of the Constitution.

+27 # D Rubes 2011-06-26 13:34

Thank you for the clarity & finally some actual facts, they are generally missing from any discussion by Republicorps. I used to be an Independant; now Pres. Reagan could Never get nominated, let alone elected; tho made into a demigod - he raised taxes 6-7 times, gave amnesty to illegal immigrants, tripled the deficit, etc., etc.

+3 # mad lyn 2011-06-26 22:40

thanking the educated lawyer, but now have to remember actor governor then president reagan. he gave us the homeless, shut down the state mental hospitals ("cant they just take a pill?"). oh yeah, then the folks who had worked for and lived in the state hospitals went into "corrections"...
folks need to have access to decent information. oh by the way, did you know those commercials are paid for by folks who want to trash your lives for their profits.....??

+2 # WMaceo 2011-06-27 14:23

D.Rubes, you have to remember that most of the right wing Repubs live in an alternate reality...

+6 # Progressive Patriot 2011-06-29 02:34

Reagan lowered taxes on the upper incomes, and raised them on everyone else. I still don't understand where people get the idea that Reagan was good for the country; I didn't think so when he was in office, and I certainly don't think so now.

+6 # Progressive Patriot 2011-06-29 02:32

And in the case of choosing of Electors, in Article II, Section 1, the states are _specifically_ given that function, and the law suit by which Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court is in violation of that clause. There is NO Federal jurisdiction in the choosing of electors.

Why did Gore's attorney's not bring that up? It was obvious to me.

+74 # BishopAndrew 2011-06-26 10:13

Has anyone asked this poor demented soul if she would have overturned the right of people of different races to marry? When the courts struck down the ban on such marriages was that "legislating from the bench?" Lastly why is she allowed by the "mainstream" biased press to get away with such ignorance and stupidity?

+14 # Wotan 2011-06-26 18:23

Bachmann is doing nothing but grandstanding for votes, nothing more. She knows that a Constitutional Amendment has no chance of passing. She is telling her bible thumping base what they want to here just as Karl Rove did with the Evangelical vote for Bush When she gets their vote they will have served her purchase. She is the consummate huckster.

+11 # CL38 2011-06-26 21:58

The far right ignores that gay relationships are about sharing their lives with another, companionship, friendship, loving and being loved. The right obsesses and deep ends about the sexual aspect of gay relationships and ignores that this is only one aspect of ANY relationship.

Is that all

+3 # Progressive Patriot 2011-06-29 02:39

The only thing the anti Gay-marriage people are protecting is D-I-V-O-R-C-E.

If you've got a strong marriage, nobody else's marriage threatens yours. If your marriage is going to fail, it's because of you and your spouse, and nobody else.

+6 # WMaceo 2011-06-27 14:25

I really wish ignorance was against the law, they'd be many in the Legislature behind bars - where they belong.

+4 # billy bob 2011-06-28 13:54

The only problem with that is that the legislators who would belong behind bars would be the same people making the law defining what ignorance was - kinda the situation we're starting to deal with already with too many bachmann's in office.

+2 # Progressive Patriot 2011-06-29 02:36

Because that "mainstream" press is unAmerican?

+80 # DaveM 2011-06-26 10:16

Yes, the party of small government and individual rights does it again.

She refers to her support of "States' Rights". Okay, New York State has enacted a law according to its constitutional process for same.

The Republican Party loves to talk about "rights", but it's never civil rights or individual rights. What they mean is rights for "the right kind of people". You know...the cast of 50s TV shows where married couples slept in separate beds and homes did not have bathrooms.

+8 # billy bob 2011-06-26 19:49

That's what I like about you Dave. You and I share the same connoisseur's appreciation for good ole' right-wing hypocricy.

+1 # mad lyn 2011-06-26 22:45

and who got to swim in the municipal pools on what days only in the enlightened west in the good old fifties and what percent of their income did corporations pay in taxes?

the "will of the people:" we general population are not always too good on unpopular issues like civil rights.
how do we derail the louder richer detractors of the public good????

+4 # Progressive Patriot 2011-06-29 02:46

The way they want to control what goes on in everyone else's bedrooms, it's a wonder any of them get close enough to have children ... but maybe they shouldn't.

The fact that they do has to do with the other hot-button issue that draws them out of the woodwork ... the anti-abortion movement ... which is _really_ about men controlling "their" submissive women.

I much prefer intelligent women in my life to brunette bimbos like Palin and Bachmann.

+63 # giraffee2012 2011-06-26 10:18

Just saw an ad by her saying she would fix the economy -- how? By overturning gay rights, supporting no gun control, stopping abortions (no matter what the condition), and other church related issues? What do the people who support (vote for) her think? These issues will give them jobs? Fix the budget? Stop wars?

Vote in 2012 -- register NOW if you're in a state with a Rep / TP governor -- and get a mail-in ballot. Get granny & the old man down the street registered NOW (with mail-in ballots)=
Do not (NOT VOTE)

+56 # camus11 2011-06-26 10:27

We'd be better served by a constitutional amendment banning ignorant, intolerant and evil a**holes like Bachmann, Palin, and, hell, the rest of today's extremist right-wing GOP from holding public office.

+10 # CL38 2011-06-26 21:32

That sounds like a great idea! Immigrants have to pass certain tests when applying for citizenship, why shouldn't politicians have to pass tests determining their "fitness" for office?

Sociopaths need not apply. Those who would destroy the constitution, go after people's civil, privacy or reproductive (or any other) rights would not be approved to run.

+56 # Rabiddog 2011-06-26 10:33

Republicans make no friggan sense. They cry too much Government interference, yet it only applys to THEM! I'm so sick and tired of their bullshit. Government is only right when they are in total control. Why shoudl Bachmann feel she has the right to overturn what an individual State has rulled on? She really is a piece of work, anybody who would vote for her is completely NUTS!

+4 # Progressive Patriot 2011-06-29 02:53

ReTHUGliklans historically cut taxes and increase the size (and therefore the cost) of government. It took Clinton the entire 8 years he was in office to finally get the national debt leveled off ... the George W. Bush took over and increased it at an even faster rate than Reagan did ... because, in addition to his tax cuts, he started two wars that aren't paid for by the greedy rich who are profiting from them. And the ReTHUGs keep blaming the huge debt on Obama ... and if we're not careful, they'll make it stick.

+57 # lanie940 2011-06-26 10:38

This Bachmann woman is a real piece of work! Why should she care about Gays being able to marry? It's NOHFB! Republicans are always scream too much Government interference, yet when they want to interfere it's ok. They make no friggan sense!

+41 # stonecutter 2011-06-26 10:48

The rank hypocrisy of this woman is as transparent as a fish tank. Her fundamentalist, delusional right-wing religious fanaticism forces her to shoehorn her public political doubletalk between real events on the ground--i.e., New York's new gay marriage law--and her twisted, pathological animis toward gays in general, and gay marriage in particular.

Politically powerful people of "faith" like Palin and Bachmann, who spread their toxic hate and bigotry under the thinly veiled guise of faux patriotism and bizarro-world "family values"-almost always at the expense of the peace of mind, pursuit of happiness and shared civil rights of those they target-should be called out for what they are: charlatans, bigots, hatemongers and Anti-American psychos.

The idea that any one of these monsters wrapped in the flag could become the president of the United States is almost as abhorrent an idea as child incest or pedophilia in the White House. Bachmann is nothing more than a Nazi in a dress and pearls.

Why doesn't the so-called traveling campaign press corps ask her about the "Seven Mountains" strategy for the domination of American society and culture by "Christian" principles, apostles and capital? Aren't her delusional, obsessive beliefs fair game if she's running for president?

+8 # CL38 2011-06-26 21:39

"Bachmann is nothing more than a Nazi in a dress and pearls."

Brilliant. She is exactly that, as are the rest of the GOP far right sociopaths.

But if huge numbers of voters don't vote these dangerous psychos out of office in November, (or prevent them from getting into office), they WILL continue to take over our country!

I'm not happy with Obama's lack of backbone and far too centrist positions, but can you imagine the damage the GOP could continue to do with a far right President in office again?

+1 # Pickwicky 2011-06-28 08:55

Bachmann brilliant? How many times did we hear Wm. F. Buckley Jr. was brilliant?

Now I ask you--is it possible to be brilliant and wrong at the same time?

+5 # billy bob 2011-06-28 16:58

The idea that Buckley was "brilliant" was itself a brilliant scam perpetuated by pseudo-intellectual right-wingers (the same people who consider Gingrich "brilliant"). It's a propaganda technique. I'm glad to read a comment by someone else who picked up on that. I'm sick of liberals just accepting "common wisdom" when it's nothing more than right-wing lies handed down to us by people like rove.

Buckley wasn't "brilliant" at all, but he sure was pretentious. Some people don't know the difference.

+3 # Pickwicky 2011-06-30 09:49

HOORAY BILLY--we're in total agreement. Interestingly, Buckley was also a homophobe like Bachmann. And Gingrich! Percy, my philosophical standard poodle, could teach Gingrich a thing or two.

+65 # GOD 2011-06-26 10:51

Shelley, GOD here. First of all, do you really think telling everybody you're talking to me is a good idea? I'm getting some pretty weird looks up here and I can hear the smirking behind my back, WHERE I SEE ALL THINGS, BTW. And who are you to go blabbering on, threatening to take away the right to marry for anyone? Don't you know I'm gay too? For Chrissake, (sorry Son, and by the way he's not my only one),I'm EVERYTHING so grow up already and stop making me look like a dick! Or I'll have to...I dunno...SMITE you or something.

Now, back to the ballgame.

+3 # giraffee2012 2011-06-26 19:34

GOD - nice to hear from you -- well done!!!

+2 # GOD 2011-06-26 22:03

Thanks and bless you, giraffee. I'm in such a good mood now, no one is going to Hell ever again...well, mostly no one!

+3 # billy bob 2011-06-26 22:09

To paraphrase Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

OF COURSE IT WAS WELL DONE!!!

+2 # Beth Sager 2011-06-27 07:12

Damn! Where is my handbasket when I need it?

+1 # Pickwicky 2011-06-28 08:58

For godssake, God, where the hell have you been? Did you hear about Japan? Stop watching ballgames and little sparrows falling.

+41 # Progressive Patriot 2011-06-26 10:55

People who insist on pursuing this path don't seem to understand the amendment process of the Constitution. Such an amendment WILL NOT PASS with a 2/3s vote in Congress, let alone pass 3/4 of the state legislatures. The momentum is with the supporters of GLBT rights, and It's time for "Christian" idiots to STFU.

+41 # BillDorsey 2011-06-26 11:09

Self-righteousness is the most abused drug in the United States; scores upon scores of millions dose up on it many times each day.

And how else can one demonstrate, nay prove, one's Godliness than by enforcing one's interpretations of the Creator's wishes upon others. As with almost everything, people do what they do out of THEIR own needs.

+13 # Rued Gestures 2011-06-26 18:00

By their deeds shall ye know them.

+5 # billy bob 2011-06-26 19:45

One of the most overtly liberal quotes from the Bible. That quote bothers a lot of evangelical conservatives.

+3 # mad lyn 2011-06-26 22:56

gotta say it. folks dealing with religiosity, please check out tattoo on the heart by father gregory boyle, puts his life where lotta mouths are; makes me hope there is a thing each of us can do where we are while this heinousness is going on.
up.. also, onda net, a free book called the authoritarians by a canadian fella (anyone know the author??) who has dissected the mindset that makes the riders on the purple sage of "mywayorthe hiway bogus godishness" (oh, was that prejudiced??)
thanks

+35 # giraffee2012 2011-06-26 11:19

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/194-194/6384-congressman-calls-for-investigation-of-clarence-thomas

The supremes allow corporations to pay for the Bachmann, Walker, and other TP/GOP campaigns by the 2010 "not constitutional" based decision.

Start with stupreme justices Thomas/ Scalia - and impeach any justice who bases a decision on $ or politics (that rule is in the constitution)

Again - vote in 2012 -- register NOW

+27 # Judith Linn 2011-06-26 13:15

5 old men ruining our democracy because the were bought and paid for by the corporations. They ,expecially Thomas are still getting their goodies from corporations. This is not what our founding fathers had in mind. Our progressive movements have the people but not the Koch money. Sad for all.

+36 # howardb4 2011-06-26 11:48

It is and/or has become a socially acceptable occurrence for individuals within the federal government to force their perspectives about ‘life’ into federal law.
Why we people allow these arrogant individuals to so forcibly intrude their personal ideas of what is right and what is wrong in personal life choices upon us is beyond me. This is the height of arrogance and certainly vividly displays a presumptuous, egotistical and imperious attitude that is all too apparent in government today and is just one the ways in which government has failed. There are many more.

+7 # CL38 2011-06-26 21:44

The GOP planned all the changes they've made, 40 years ago, and have steadily worked to introduce and establish their "policies".

We'll be working for the next 40 years to reverse the damage they've done.

+39 # dickmail 2011-06-26 12:00

Sad that we live in a world where human rights are legislated

+34 # Regina 2011-06-26 12:06

Do we want a hallucinator in the Presidency? Bachmann keeps telling is that God is speaking directly to her, and she hears His voice and follows His directions. That condition is one of certifiable insanity, or should be. As for her status as an attorney, is Oral Roberts U. accredited? Is she an ABA member? Did she actually pass a course in Constitutional Law? Or for that matter, American History? The only qualification that she actually has is being over 35 years of age.

+40 # Elliot Hoffman 2011-06-26 12:13

Do not think that Bachmann is just some dumb shit who will slink away into the night. She's running a serious campaign and will ignite the rabid juices of millions of Americans who will not only vote for her but will mobilize many others to do the same. These same people have been brainwashed until dillusional and have great passion for their misguided view of the world - no different than the dillusional Islamic fundamentalism or any other kind of fundamentalist, "my religion is the only right religion."

These folks will be funded by the likes of the Koch brothers, Scaifs, etc. whose only real religion is money and the insatiable greed for more. But the poor dopes following Bachmann are too ignorant to realize they've been had and then go foaming at the mouth in support of crazy shit that makes their lives more miserable.

How do we deal with this? Mobilization! It is the only way. The major corp and financial interests have unlimited funds and will spend whatever it takes to purchase our Congress and our public policy making apparatus. The only way to win is with votes. We need to mobilize and make sure our folks vote in massive numbers. Imagine a citizens' movement that demands that our Congressional reps heed our demands rather than the Koch Brothers? No? Yes?

+2 # CL38 2011-06-26 21:47

Thank you for your comment. This is truly the only way to change what's happened to our country over the past 40 years.

If we mobilize and vote in MASSIVE numbers to oust these sociopaths, we can take back our country, but will need to be diligent about doing this for a long time to come.

+2 # Beth Sager 2011-06-27 07:15

I saw that in a Florida poll of the Republican candidates. Bachmann was second with 21%.

+19 # billy bob 2011-06-26 12:14

I wonder if bachmann's campaign is being funded by ROMNEY, PAWLENTY, and HUNTSMAN.

She's the best thing to happen to these people. We ALL know she has no chance of being president EVER. She probably knows it too. Maybe she's just in it for the speaker engagements, book tour and show on fox (ala palin).

On the other hand, maybe someone like ROMNEY is funding her lunacy to take the spotlight off of himself. So far, it's working.

Remember how no one paid attention to McCain before the last election? We WILL NOT out fund the next repugnican candidate. Sorry, but 'tain't gonna happen. If we don't get prepared for candidate Romney, or candidate Huntsman - AND FAST, we'll be looking at a few years of PRESIDENT romney, etc.

bachman is a sideshow freak. Romney, Huntsman and Pawlenty are a threat, because at the end of the day, they aren't that much different than bachmann, just a WHOLE LOT smarter and more deceptive.

+8 # Regina 2011-06-26 16:03

Don't bet on her disappearance! She claims to have a pipeline directly from God and thereafter right out to susceptible, suggestible believers who vote.

+6 # Reyn 2011-06-27 06:53

You do not understand the religious right - she will be in the race until she is voted out. She BELIEVES what she is saying, it is not theater as far as she is concerned. Her husband is a reparative therapist is memory serves. She is an excellent fund raiser (who spent over 13 million in her reelection effort to the HOUSE), who believes God speaks to her and is determined to do "His" will. If she is 7 mountains, then she is even more dangerous. They would kill anyone who disagreed with them, once they were in power.

It is insane not to mobilize against people like her.

Reyn

+3 # billy bob 2011-06-27 17:44

I actually agree. I just think we need to make sure a strong link is drawn between her and other candidates who actually will get the nomination and haven't really done anything substantive to seperate themselves from her.

-6 # earldog1 2011-06-26 12:35

This Country is leaning towards another Civil War because of people like Bachmann, she is living back in the 50's so she should stay at home and have babys and leave the country to the men to run.

+14 # John Gill 2011-06-26 14:23

Earl, I am seein the negative responses...you are meaning that if Bachmann wants to live in a repressive, patriarchal society then let her do so, right? Not that women should stay at home.

+4 # mad lyn 2011-06-26 23:04

i dont think she can have any more babies.
looks like we gotta get out there with the babies. sign painting, anyone?

-44 # Major 2011-06-26 13:01

It is not the church vs the state. It's nature. The male (Man) and female (Woman) were created by a "supreme being" to populate the earth. How can a man and a man or a woman and a woman create an offspring?

+27 # ornery dem 2011-06-26 14:15

Adam and Eve were NOT created to "populate" the earth. They were created to live in Eden and obey the Lord in joy. Not until they sinned were they sent forth to bear children in pain and tears.

About two per cent of most animal populations are what we consider gay. Nature expands to include many miracles, unlike the brain cells of the conservatives. And it may take contributions from egg and sperm to create "an offspring," but with hundreds of thousands of parentless children in the world awaiting adoption, I think there are enough "offspring" to go around.

Seeing the joy in the faces on the streets of NY this week was the only piece of news that made me smile. How sad that self-righteous bigots want to destroy that joy, which is based only in desperately wanting to make a loving, lifetime commitment.

-10 # Curious 2011-06-27 05:23

Ornery, From where do you obtain the citing that 2% of most animal populations are gay? Any idea what the percentage of the animal population is polygamous? Seems there is a much higher percentage of the animal world which is polygamous, yet this form of human association is considered extremely wrong and against the ways of nature.

+7 # Reyn 2011-06-27 06:55

There are numerous studies -- I suggest that you start with Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D.; Biological Exuberance; St. Martin's Press and go from there for a clearer understanding.

Polygamy is still practiced among humans in significant portions of the world, and is included in some religious faiths. It's rejection in our society is culturally based. Further I do not see polygamy in animals species, polyamory maybe, but not polygamy.

Regards,

Reyn

+22 # John Gill 2011-06-26 14:32

Major, homosexuality is not outside of nature. It is, rather, an aspect OF nature. The inclination spreads through all species and if, as you suggest, a supreme being has anything to do with creation, homosexuality manifests as one of countless, diverse expressions of that being's perfection. Union is not limited to population increase, but is sometimes an expression of love, an experience often attributed to that supreme being of whom/which you speak.

+14 # billy bob 2011-06-26 19:30

It's also "nature" that in some heterosexual relationships no offspring are created. Should these marriages be dissolved for serving no purpose? It's also in "nature" that some heterosexual relationships lead to wife abuse or child abuse. It's also in "nature" that some people abandon their heterosexually created children, only to have them adopted by LOVING homosexuals.

Luckily for us, "nature" is what we are. Luckily for us we are more than just animals whose only purpose in existence is to produce offspring.

+1 # CL38 2011-06-26 21:48

Oh please.

+7 # mad lyn 2011-06-26 23:10

dearheart, the creation of the offspring does not guarantee its safe rearing. how many folks have grown up with loving other adults who allowed us to survive and even flourish. as for the male/female question, there is technolgy and friendly or available donors of the whatever you're worried about.

and at the moment, we are overpopulating the place anyway.
is it alright to have a loving partner? is it alright for that partnership to have protections of law in case of illness, power of attorney, sharing of resources for the beloved in the even of the first gone?

it turns out we are a little more varietal than some folks would like to think. even in thy own family, could be, my dear

+7 # Jerryball 2011-06-27 14:47

Ahhhh yes. The procreation argument. Fact -- humans are about to procreate ourselves out of the picture to the exclusion of all other creatures which was not the creator's intention (or maybe it is?). Humans are breeding in multitudes like rabbit-lust and no love, but unlike rabbits or the animal world, many are running from "responsibility" and abandoning their babies in droves for someone else to take care of their "non-procreation instinct, but lust." Up your procreator theory. It sucks big time.

-48 # Joeconserve 2011-06-26 13:10

As I read the above comments I observe that none of them rise above the biological level, no one sees the beauty of life and its significance. Some address the law. Some attack the person of Bachmann. Some go off on a tangent to blame GWB. None seem to be concerned about the issue of life and how a gay relationship does not add to life's beauty because it can't create life. No one seems to understand. Nor do they care.

+22 # amazonita 2011-06-26 14:37

Listen, Joeconserve. What creates "life's beauty" is love. If you don't think gay relationships add to life's beauty, then you obviously don't know any gay people. Even if you think you do, you don't. If you want to make the ignorant argument that only babies add to life's beauty, then would you suggest that straight people who cannot or choose not to have children shouldn't be allowed to marry?

And Earldog and Major- you think the world should be run only by men? Right, because up to now, everything's been peachy keen, right? It's just those ornery women causing all the trouble. You are both dumbasses beyond the capability of measuring the extreme dumbassificatio n of America. Idiots.

+7 # billy bob 2011-06-26 19:55

I agree, but I think earldog agrees with you. He/she is just saying that, since that's the world bachmann believes in, she should have no right not living in it herself. He doesn't agree with it. He's just pointing out her hypocricy.

+1 # mad lyn 2011-06-26 23:17

mija, i dont want a revolution if a cant dance. but i want a revolution. lets dance, can we get them to dance too?

+18 # C. Price 2011-06-26 14:38

So your position is that if you cannot produce children you should not be allowed to marry? What an absurd idea. Millions of marriages without children would laugh you right off stage. Try this: Live and let live. It's simple to understand and follow. Just let people alone to do anything lawful they want.

+8 # Wotan 2011-06-26 18:44

C. Price
You have a very enlightened philosophy on
this issue....kudos to you. People should
quite simply mind their own damn business.

+18 # Blue Skies 2011-06-26 14:43

While I agree that creating life adds to the beauty and significance of life how about couples who marry but due to infertility problems are unable to create life. And also some couples choose to not have children for whatever reasons they feel necessary. If you're saying that unless you marry and have children the beauty of life and it's significance is not available or enjoyed by these people you are being very narrow minded and unaware that people find beauty in life in many different ways.
Life can be beautiful and fulfilling for a married couple who are childless and if gays who marry choose to adopt children and give them a caring and loving home they too can share in the beauty of life by creating a family for children who would otherwise be abandoned.

+12 # Beth Sager 2011-06-26 14:43

What about all those straight couples who can't or don't want to have children. Would you want them to have tests or fill out questionnaires before the got married? They aren't beautiful unless they procreate?

+16 # Lulie 2011-06-26 15:12

Joeconserve -- I've got to wonder how you define "life's beauty." I think most people would agree that there is a lot that "adds to life's beauty" even if "it can't create life." But even if you think that "a gay relationship does not add to life's beauty," so what? Mind your own business -- live and let live.

+18 # AnneP 2011-06-26 15:16

A pedophile raping a 10 yr-old can create life, JoeConserve. Does this make him beautiful? Who are you to judge what is life's beauty when beauty is so clearly in the eye of the beholder? Love in any form can considered beautiful by those who don't try to shoehorn their narrow opinions and beliefs on others,

-17 # Joeconserve 2011-06-26 15:53

I see, everything is relative. What's the pedophile comment got to do with anything? We are talking about life!!

+10 # billy bob 2011-06-26 19:34

If what we're talking about is "life" rather than a loving relationship between consenting adults, then the pedophile comment has EVERYTHING to do with this discussion.

+16 # mbh 2011-06-26 15:35

LIfe's beauty, as you call it, is about SOOOOO much more than having sex and babies. You ever seen a beautiful sunset? Ever seen a hummingbird hovering on a flower? I am female, heterosexual, single and choose not to have children as the world has enough of them. Unlike many "pro-life" screamers, I actually work with kids who have been rejected by society and their biological parents who had no business creating life. But they did....and it was not "life's beauty" as you call it. And just because I have not had children does not mean I have not experienced much of life's beauty. Your comments are offensive and very narrow minded. Life's significance, according to most holy people and prophets, lies in helping others and making a difference, not necessarily in having more babies. Remember, Jesus didn't have children but he sure knew of life's beauty and sure made life more beautiful for billions of people.

-21 # Joeconserve 2011-06-26 16:01

You speak of life unfolding. I speak of life as it is created.

I commend you for your efforts with children. Were couples to understand the creative process more and all who are involved you would have less work to do. There is the biological and there is soul which makes up the total human life.

+4 # Wotan 2011-06-26 18:58

JoeBoyConserve
You speak with the false authority of a
religious zealot, most probably a Catholic
or an Evangelical. The Bible is an anti-
quated book and there is evidence of it's
illegitimacy. Organized religion is the
bane of the human race. Your faith is your
only basis for your opinion. If others do
not agree with your views, you can take
solace in what you know awaits them.

+6 # billy bob 2011-06-26 19:36

Again you're confusing "creation" with an act that "fails to rise above the biological".

To use religious terminology which you might understand, can a human being "create" anything? Doesn't God create EVERYTHING? If so, didn't God CREATE homosexuals? Who are you to argue with God's plan?

+4 # billy bob 2011-06-26 19:32

It's interesting that part of your criticism of the comments of others is that it fails to "rise above the biological level", and another part of it is that homosexual relationships "can't create life".

Do you see the inconsistency in your thinking?

-1 # cydfan 2011-07-01 12:10

Dear Billy:
Of course he doesn't...we're talking about religion here. It's built on inconsistency; just like Bachmann's thinking. If God creates life but that life is flawed then leave it to man to correct it seems to be be what he is saying. Rather like if the Federal government is bad, leave it to the states until they make bad laws, then leave it to the Fed to correct it. They don't realize the real truth is man created both. Did man create God, Joe or did God create man? If one is flawed then so are both. Accept it.

+3 # mad lyn 2011-06-26 23:14

you can create beauty, my love, by giving a smile. you can create beauty by looking at your 'enemy' with the eyes of god, who sees godself

+5 # Reyn 2011-06-27 06:57

Ummm.. We have 2 and almost 3 children. One by adoption, and 1 by surrogacy, with another one by surrogacy from the same mother due in September. I'm sorry, we seem to be doing just fine creating life. I think you need to take a deep breath and recognize that not all things need be done in accordance with YOUR interpretation to be ok.

Kind thoughts,

Reyn

+24 # catfather 2011-06-26 14:26

First, the gay relationship itself adds to life's beauty, just as a healthy straight relationship does. It isn't the solemninization of a marriage by priest, rabbi or judge that adds beauty to life; it is the gift of love one partner offers the other. As examples: I have two straight friends, married many years; we have two gay friends, also in a long-term relationship. Both couples have created beauty in life within their spheres. The straight couple has two wonderful daughters; the gay couple is helping raise one guy's nephew (other gay and lesbian couples adopt). THAT is adding to life's beauty. I am a single gay man; I add beauty to life by the love I give to my straight friends and to my gay friends and to their families. Pure and simple: It is the giving of love that adds beauty to life. Keith Olbermann is right, when he quotes Omar Kahyyam on this issue: "So I be written in the book of love, I care not that I be written in that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the book of love."

-27 # Joeconserve 2011-06-26 15:37

I have no problem with your view of love except that it does not address life in its totality. Without the interaction of a man and a woman the creative process cannot take place. Life can only be maintained and I realize there are many situations where this maintenance becomes the best alternative when a child is in need. However, two men or two women cannot create life except by artificial means. This is true in the whole of the Animal Kingdom. But, we humans are much more than the other animals which puts us in a special catagory.

+6 # billy bob 2011-06-26 19:38

So Beethoven couldn't have written a symphony without having sex first? I think he was a virgin. Tchiakovsky was gay!

Also, since we are "in a special category", doesn't that give us the freedom of choice?

+7 # billy bob 2011-06-26 20:00

"Life in its totality" includes the existence of human beings who are homosexual and have brains that beleive in freedom from religious oppression. By denying basic biological facts like the existence of homosexuality (whether you approve of it or not), YOU'RE actually the one "not addressing life in its totality".

+6 # Reyn 2011-06-27 09:45

Life in totality -- could you define what you mean -- obviously it must be more than having a child. Otherwise it wouldn't matter whether or not it was by "artificial means." -- Your position cannot be rationally addressed without understanding.

Reyn

+2 # mad lyn 2011-06-26 23:22

thanks

-22 # MidwestTom 2011-06-26 14:28

European Americans are not reproducing themselves, and they make up the vast majority of Gays in the country. Latinos in general marry and have children, while the majority of black births are to single mothers, and both Latinos and blacks are reproducing at a rate mare then sufficient to grow their numbers.I have been told that a homosexual relationship is much easier the enter, while a heterosexual heterosexual relationship is much harder requiring a lot more compromise.

+5 # billy bob 2011-06-26 19:42

Ah! Now I get it! So homosexuality is part of a vast conspiracy masterminded by the mongoloid races! Now it's all coming into focus! Charlie Manson couldn't have said it better. The black man is never homosexual, so he will slowly take over the world because whitey is wasting his seed!

When I look around me, all I can think of is how white Americans are getting dangerously underpopulated. I wonder how the 200,000,000 white Americans will manage!

Note to RSN readers: I'm being sarcastic.

+10 # 4yourinformation 2011-06-26 14:45

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Michele Bachmann was really a lesbian inside, fighting to get out. Much like Larry Craig, the gay Mormon ex-senator from Whitaho.

+13 # CCB5er34 2011-06-26 15:21

This is why she and all those like her must be fought against, HARD! These people want to drive this country back to the middle ages, and I for one am horrified and frightened at the prospect. She is just vile.

+11 # cherylpetro 2011-06-26 15:23

SO, "MS STATES RIGHTS" SUDDENLY SAYS STATES DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE? I GUESS SHE WANTS THE STATES TO DECIDE, UNLESS SHE DOESN'T LIKE IT! WHAT A STEAMING LOAD OF HYPOCRISY!!

+11 # bluescat48 2011-06-26 15:38

Just what we need another right-wing, pseudo-Christian, homophobic male in a woman's body

+9 # teineitalia 2011-06-26 16:44

The new Bachmann campaign motto: "Boldly onward into the past."

what a sideshow. what a freak.

Can we please get back to the real problems we face? Climate change, endless war, banksters robbing people...
can we please concentrate our time and energy on these issues instead of worrying about people who want to legally commit their lives to loving relationships?

+16 # Jesus Follower 2011-06-26 17:21

Midwest Tom, Major, Joeconserve, I have a situation I would like to put before you. I am a devout Christian, an artist (music--professional opera singer, art--professional graphic design, with sculpture and painting as hobbies, writing--poet, memoirist) and a female heterosexual. I didn't find the man I wanted to marry until I was 60. Needless to say, we have no children. Should there be a law requiring me to stay single since I, in your opinion, can add no beauty to life?

I would do a bit more studying of biology, were I you. There are many interesting biological sexual quirks out there, throughout the animal kingdom, that you obviously have yet to come across.

Please consider that your education has not led you into every nook and cranny of the physical, philosophical nor religious world and until it ranges much more widely--at least widely enough for you to understand how very narrow it is now--you really should not pontificate about the definition of beauty and how it should be legislated rather than just enjoyed, or the workings of the whole of the biological world. Many scholars working over centuries have not solved the mysteries you all seem so certain you have done.

I pray that you may learn about the real beauty of life -- Love: of God, Nature, your fellow humans and other living things.

-19 # Joeconserve 2011-06-26 17:45

I don't recall saying that once married children are required. You took a life created (you) and made it a beautiful life unfolding. The beauty of life is that a man and a woman come together to create life while at the same time God participates in that creation by giving a soul. What happens after that is up to the human created. Your comments tell me you did a great job.

+7 # billy bob 2011-06-26 19:43

Would she have done less of a great job if she also happened to be a lesbian married to another lesbian? Or does that somehow change the rules?

+3 # Jesus Follower 2011-06-26 20:02

No, you don't say exactly that “once married children are required” but you do say "…a gay relationship does not add to life's beauty because it can't create life." Many gay people are a great source of creativity in the arts and a wide variety of other fields. Why is it that I, as a heterosexual, in your opinion have no obligation to reproduce in order to create beauty and marry, while they must? Sidebar: I believe that life is reproduced in us by the way we are made. We do NOT create it.

At issue is the attempt to legislate personal morality. My freedom ends at the border of yours. If you can legislate my morality, then I have an equal right to legislate yours. The government is not free to designate the moral requirements for marriage. Homosexuals only want the right to legalize companionship and love equal to that afforded you.

Leave the morality to individual conscience and to God. Jesus taught there are only two commandments in the end: Love God with all you are and have. Love your neighbor (the rest of this small world) as yourself.

Thank you for your kind words, but I take no credit for what I have done. I was given certain talents and am obligated to make what I can of them--with the Lord's strength and guidance--because I was haunted by the scripture which says "of those to whom much is given, much is required".

+5 # Jerryball 2011-06-27 14:59

What a terribly restrictive view of life. This is not beauty, but a jail of your own making.

+9 # AJNorth 2011-06-26 18:51

To begin with, this woman is deranged. She has a profound personality disorder (or several). She is disconnected from evidence-based reality (like so many of her fellow travelers), which in itself is sufficient for a diagnosis of mental illness. Then there is her "knowledge" of basic information, in particular, anything having to do with the sciences, immediately followed by history - beginning with American history (don't even bring up world history). If this woman is a joke, then she is a humorless - and exceedingly dangerous - one.

Make no mistake: if this galactically ignorant and ideologically warped and petulant pervert should get the nomination (even as veep), this nation will face the greatest greatest peril of its short history.

+7 # CL38 2011-06-26 22:10

I think you are right on target. Our country is in great danger from these sociopaths. And they ARE sociopaths. They will continue to destroy the country, our constitution--and life as we've known it in the US, if they continue getting "elected".

We have to mobilize and vote in November.

+5 # arun 2011-06-26 19:57

what will happen to Gay republicans in the state of NY ?Will they remain spinsters?

+7 # billy bob 2011-06-26 20:03

They'll be republicans. In other words, they'll find a reason to justify their own hypocricy or inconsistent thinking. This is no different from "small government" repugs who want big government when it suits them, or "state's rights" repugs who want the federal government to take away state's rights when it suits them, etc.

+4 # Jane Elliott 2011-06-27 03:30

Why is anyone listening to these two weirdly-wired witches when we have some really smart women in Washington who, for years, have been helping to write legislation that tries to make life better for all of us? Ignore the ignorant and watch the wise, for God's sake--and your own.

+5 # fhunter 2011-06-27 04:47

Ms. Bachmann got a message FROM GOD to run for President. She did it, it came from God. There was no independent confirmation that it was God, indeed, who talked to her. With such help, she will surely make it. President Bachmann may get another message from God to drop a few nukes on the 1.3 billion Muslims who live between the Indian ocean and the Atlantic Ocean. She will do it, it came from God. There was no independent confirmation that it was God, indeed, who talked to her.

+3 # billy bob 2011-06-27 05:30

I agree, but I seriously doubt bachmann's "God" would want her to drop nukes on Muslims. That would make it harder to extract all that oil they happen to be standing on. He might want her to nuke San Francisco, but I bet he's to embedded with the fossil fuel industry to want to nuke the Middle East.

0 # ericlipps 2011-06-27 06:53

How about this design?

{imsage: crucifix)YOUR CHURCH

IS NOT

OUR GOVERNMENT [image: U.S. Constitution]

+7 # marilyn Sayles 2011-06-27 07:14

It is amazing to me that the Tea Party founder and leader, has complained about Gov't. intruding into our lives, wants a new law to intrude even further into citizens lives and personal decisions. She stands for States' Rights, but is appalled that NYS passed a law to allow Gay Marriage. Now she wants the Federal Gov't to outlaw it!! Inconsistent, outrageous and stupid.

-4 # Gary in Midwest 2011-06-27 08:14

Sounds like a lot of you have made your mind up about Michelle but I find that strange because I think, like myself, you really haven't gotten a chance to know what she's about. I hate it when someone is ridiculed right out of the gate like that. For me, I'm going to keep an open mind. So far, I don't particularly like what she has to say but I certainly don't like what any of the other candidates are saying either and that includes Mr. Obama who sucks up so badly to the Repubs that he oughta just quit the charade and call himself a Republican in the vein of Bubba Bush whose policies he so wholeheartedly embraces.

+4 # billy bob 2011-06-27 17:36

So you might still find out something about her that would make you vote for her?

+3 # billy bob 2011-06-28 16:49

More specifically, what would make you vote for her? What are you waiting to hear from her that un-does everything we already know about her? She's not exactly "right out of the gate". She has a well-known public history and has made many many well known well documented statements that paint a pretty strong image of her beliefs.

If you're unwilling to decide whether or not you might vote for her, I can only conclude one of two things is going on:

one, that you haven't been paying attention;

or two, that you agree with much of what she says.

If you haven't been paying attention, don't punish those of us who have. If you agree with her, then you can cut the charade about blaming the President for agreeing with repugnicans too often - especially when you're one of them.

+6 # humanmancalvin 2011-06-27 08:29

Oh dear me..what happened to the Tea Bagging philosophy of less government interference? The woman is clearly delusional yet clever enough to speak the language of hate & intolerance that is breeding like rabbits on hormones throughout this country. The Taliban has nothing but similarities between themselves & these faux-Christians.

+3 # bobby t. 2011-06-27 09:42

rove's mantra is: tell a big lie, yell it louder and keep saying it. eventually people will believe it. michelle listens to his doctrine. and he got it from hitler.
people still believe that the 9/11 terrorists came from iraq. last poll is old but 60% of americans still believe that. god is the biggest lie. and in this country 83 % of the people believe in god.
hitler, rove's doctrine works. it is quite scary when you think about it. that is what the tea party does. tells lies, says it louder, keep repeating it, and then lo and behold, there is an army of people who believe in it.
when i talk to conservatives, i always start with this phrase, which of course is nasty, " don't let me confuse you with the facts." or you can make up your lies and opinions, but not your facts, as glenn beck, et al. did.
and as one person said perviously, do not underestimate the enemy, and they are the enemy. this is a class war and the enemy is fierce and powerful. antiochus is coming, and i have no god or heaven to promise you. well, maybe a few virgins, but they are hard to find nowadays....

+4 # boudreaux 2011-06-27 10:25

If she knew God as she says she does then she would know that God loves everyone. He doesn't pick and choose those he wants to love, he does it unconditionally ...

+4 # billy bob 2011-06-27 17:51

I just heard on Rachel Maddow that bachmann said she's just like "John Wayne from Waterloo, Iowa".

John Wayne the actor wasn't from Waterloo.

John Wayne Gacy (the serial killer) ACTUALLY WAS from Waterloo Iowa. Apparently, she has a few thing in common with THAT "john wayne".

+3 # Larry G 2011-06-29 12:25

Didn't Michelle get all her "learnin'" at Bob Jones University? Enough said.

+3 # Pickwicky 2011-06-30 10:00

Larry--let us hope that Bachmann's education at Bob Jones gets enormous press. As an academic, I can vouch for the inherent "learnin" joke.

+4 # giraffee2012 2011-06-29 21:00

I just prayed for Bachmann to be the GOP nominee for President bc I can imagine "the debate" between President Obama & Bachmann -- and then I smiled (actually laughed out loud - all alone at my desk)

I was inspired with the thought after hearing President Obama's speech 6/29/2011 ALONG with the signt of the big truck with the 1,292,000+ signatures by Ohians when they only needed about 263,000 to repeal (whatever) their GOP/TP governor *(etc)

OHIO has been a big swing state in Presidential elections .... sigh

+3 # mort fineberg 2011-06-30 07:45

A person with narcissistic personality disorder thinks "she" is always right and
the other person is always wrong.

+3 # Doni 2011-06-30 15:12

Get your church off my body, out of my bedroom, and away from my right to marry and have a family with whomever I love. You are a dangerous woman and I hope all sane people will unite against you.

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.