Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Video: US student, 16, confronts Bachmann on marriage rights

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. It should have nothing to do with sexual gender. Laws on Marrage should follow that if 2 people love each other they have the right to marry. Also, I dont like the rounds of applause this woman was getting, namely because I know if I was in that girls position, I would feel like I was being ganged up on slightly, like I had the wrong idea of things. Which I dont.

    1. mmm… the applause was obviously coming from her campaigners, and it did lake real enthusiasm…

    2. “It should have nothing to do with sexual gender. Laws on Marrage should follow that if 2 people love each other they have the right to marry.”

      But marriage (as opposed to various other unions, civil or otherwise) is between one person of each sex (a man and a women) forming an union for the procreation of life, mutual companionship and the betterment of society by forming a microcosm of it.

      Why can’t same sex partners be grateful for civil unions, which are – in all but name – marriages. To radically redefine marriage for the sake of a tiny sexual minority is just plain madness. Marriage is the union of the two different sexes in two people becoming one. If a girl (even a lesbian) wants to get married then she needs to find a man. Let marriage be marriage and civil parnerships, etc, be just that.

      1. Separate but equal doesn’t work its been shown a million times before this is nothing more than apartheid in the 21st Century!!

        What’s so bad about redefining marriage its been done a million times before (Henry VIII for example) originally marriage was not a Christian thing and could be done by same sex couples but the church changed it to suit themselves.

      2. I suspect they used similar arguments to try to stop interracial arguments, John. Marriage has already been redefined numerous times, eg to allow divorcees to re-marry; to allow couples from different races to re-marry, etc.

        We learn and we move on regarding human rights. Ideally, we don’t treat women like cr@p anymore and deprive them of the right to vote, we don’t enslave other humans and we shouldn’t deprive people of the ability to marry just because of the gender of the person they love.

      3. David Myers 6 Dec 2011, 9:15am

        The U.S. Supreme Court struck down “separate but equal” with regards to schools, to drinking fountains, to swimming pools, to seats on a bus, etc. What’s so hard to understand about that? If it applies human rights based on race it should also apply to human rights based on sexual orientation.

      4. Jock S. Trap 18 Dec 2011, 9:45am

        love is love no matter what the sexes are. Marriage outdated religion and civil marriage has nothing to do with religion.

        Think again, bozo!

  2. So, she “defends” marriage by recommending that a gay man marry a woman that he does not love and does not wish to spend his life with in order to satisfy the bronze age dogma of desert nomads. Why, Mrs Bachmann, is that autobiographical? It is discrimination. Of course it is. LGBT are not allowed to marry the person that they LOVE, straight people are. It is typical of her mindset that she immediately starts thinking about sex lives – I swear, the right wing neo-con christofascists spend more time thinking about gay sex than I do, and I’m gay!

    1. I agree – the obsession with sex is just killing. Why oh why are they so obsessed with what I do in my bedroom??

      1. It’s typical of the faux-puritanical evangelical mindset – the fear the someone, somewhere, is having a lot more fun than they are! And to be honest, I think there is a degree of fetishising the forbidden – if it is taboo and therefore “naughty” it gives them a cheap thrill (this is why so many closeted LGBT in politics vote against LGBT rights, and then get caught in the public toilets, or hire same-sex prostitutes to “carry their luggage”.)

        1. So very true – well said!

      2. What an arrogant comment! Who has named you our god to determine what is moral or not, and even worse to impose your own personal morals to others?
        Wake up! We don’t live in the middle ages any more!

        1. Keith does !!

        2. Carl, Keith probably has mental health issues. Don’t worry about him. Imagine how unhappy he is to spend his time posting the incoherent babble he does everyday on Pink News. I just wish he’d go to the doctors. He clearly needs medication or psychological help.

    2. Kattt Dadia 2 Dec 2011, 1:18pm

      Well said! I guess that I, too, would have a much more fulfilling life if I thought about sex as much as she and her husband do. I think I’ll pass this time.

  3. These kids are SO brave to continue questioning her in the face of people applauding her homophobic comments!

    Well done them!!

  4. Barry Walton 2 Dec 2011, 1:32pm

    It used to be the law in the “United” States of America that a coloured person couldn’t sit in the same place as a white person to eat a meal or ride a bus but that law was changed, so why not this one? Basically cos of god-bothering nuts like Bachman I suspect.

  5. The mad bat has contradicted herself. AGAIN.

    If the article quotes her accurately (I can’t see the video here at work) she said “There shouldn’t be any special rights or any special set of criteria based upon people’s preferences.”

    So a heterosexual has the right to marry granted to them becuase their preference is in line with the law that a man can only marry a woman.

    However, a gay person does not have the same right because their preference is to marry someone of the same sex which the law disbars.

    Therefore there clearly are special rights based on people’s preferences and what she said is patently untrue.

    How long before people wake up to the fact this woman is the dictionary definition of a moron?

    1. Gaye Tannenbaum 2 Dec 2011, 9:02pm

      You just have to go back to the Loving case. Once upon a time, it was illegal in many states for different race couples to marry. Would Ms. Bachmann have made the same argument (to the same applause) if she had been campaigning 70 years ago? All US citizens have the right to marry as long as they marry within their race. It’s the law of the land…

      Marriage equality NOW!

      1. David Myers 6 Dec 2011, 9:19am

        Yes you would have so argued. She’s a bigot now and she would have been a bigot then.

  6. I understand why she hates gay people. I’d hate them too if I was trapped in a ridiculous marriage with a man who doesn’t find me attractive because he is too busy thinking about other men.

    What a big fat mess of a person

  7. Well of course she will recommend a gay man marry a woman. That is what HER husband did!

  8. Miguel Sanchez 2 Dec 2011, 2:56pm

    I guess she hasn’t ready the 14th Ammendment then.

    1. Exactly and the right wing republican stacked Supreme Court of the U.S. would have great difficulty admitting that the rights of the minority must be protected as guaranteed under that amendment. I’d be more than surprised if they ruled in favour of striking down the Defence of Marriage Act based on the 14th. Look what it did with the personhood of corporations issue, the Citizens United debacle, allowing corporations to be treated as human begins thereby allowing them to donate as much as they want to political candidates, in other words, buying elections.

  9. What this low information ignoramus is saying is that gay people should remain in the closet permanently, marry someone of the opposite sex and live a life of lies and deceit while cheating on the side. Those are fine christian values aren’t they? The woman is an idiot. I pity her poor lesbian sister having her as a family member.

  10. Brett Cottrell 2 Dec 2011, 3:26pm

    Poor Michele Bachmann. If same sex marriage is legalized, people will marry the Eiffel Tower, and her husband will leave her for the Seattle Space Needle.
    http://brettcottrell.blogspot.com/2011/11/bachmanns-anti-statue-of-liberty-bias.html

  11. What bothers me is that Bachmann is leaning what appears to be very aggressively over the young girl asking the questions. You can see the sense of worry on the girl’s face.

    1. auntie babs 3 Dec 2011, 8:19am

      thats cos Bachmann is propbably checking out her tits.

  12. I empathise with the baby at 4:27.

  13. “Government only censors religious speech in schools. Why is that?”

    I think you answered that question yourself, Michele…

    1. ‘A prayer in a public school! GOD HAS NO PLACE IN THESE FOUR WALLS!’

      Ah the Simpsons, American social liberalism at its finest.

  14. She’s an idiot and so is most of that crowd clapping at every word that comes out of that stupid woman’s mouth.

  15. What’s interesting to me is that Bachmann and people like her say they want to protect religious liberty, which of course they should do. But I believe God created me with an attraction to other men, wanting me to be with another man and make a lifetime commitment to him through marriage. Those are my beliefs, and there are a lot of other people who share them. Does the First Amendment protect our right to practice our beliefs, or does it only protect the right of straight Christians? It seems to me that Bachmann, like many others, does not believe in freedom of religion but in dominance of HER religion (AKA “special rights”).

    1. As in Britain, they want to impose a homophobic religious orthodoxy on everyone, as of course those who have a different interpretation are simply “wrong”.

  16. Well done to those teenagers. What good role models they are for others who have had their minds closed by brainwashing all this religious junk. These poor people live a life believing in spooky supernatural being/s from elsewhere. Religion – aside from mass subjugation of the peoples of the world – good for what exactly?

  17. Saying “the law is the Law” as a defence of her totally irrational stance, is no defence at all. Particularly in a country where, if it’s against the Constitution, the law most certainly is not the Law.

  18. Well look who has the IQ of a single celled organism…

    1. Amoeba is her middle name but shhh! … don’t tell anyone.

  19. Would Michele Bachmann be right about there being no discrimination if it was same sex marriages that were the only option for everyone regardless of their sexual orientation?
    Heterosexual couples would not be discriminated against because like everyone else they could marry a same sex partner …
    It’s obvious that Michele Bachmann is still talking out of her ass.

  20. The worrying thing is that people actually agree with/believe what this Bachmann is saying.

    Sadly these people have no concept of what reality is, and they go for circular arguments which they believe and think sounds credible.

    Keep going Bachmann; people like you will kill your cause and set people free.

  21. If she wins the nomination then there is no hope.

    The article was misleading. I read it as there was support for the gsa rep but they were supporting Bachman.

    :(

    She is a horrid deluded woman

    1. David Myers 6 Dec 2011, 9:24am

      There is absolutely no way Bachman could be elected president. Her getting the Republican nomination would absolutely ensure the election of Obama.

  22. Robin Evans 2 Dec 2011, 8:42pm

    the womans a homo-hater – ill say no more!

    1. Jock S. Trap 18 Dec 2011, 9:48am

      and I’d guess she hates life in general to be honest.

  23. de Villiers 2 Dec 2011, 9:48pm

    “Government only censors religious speech in schools. Why is that?”

    Surely that would be the Constitution?

  24. False information, the problems in schools started when they started drugging the children with psychiatric drugs, http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/04/21/inventing-disorders/.
    As far as being an America I demand that as a gay man or woman we have the same freedom to marry a man of a woman if we want to. LGBT people pay their taxes and we demand that we be given the same Civil Rights as other Americans who can marry. It is time to change the law and give LGBT people the human, equal and Civil Rights to marry a person of the same sex. If it takes a Revolutionary War to do this I am willing to fight, give me Liberty or give me death was a famous saying of an American who wanted to live free.

    1. You are right George the Christians have false information and they know it
      yet they use it as propaganda to try and confuse and fool the sheepeople.
      I went to public school where there was no prayer and we had no problems with the students back then. But since the Psychiatrist have been “treating” the poor children with psychiatric drugs they have been getting guns and killing their class mates, almost every school shooting is related to some child who was treated by a psychiatrist and given drugs like ritalin or prozac or some brain damaging drugs like them that do more harm than good, see for your self, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7dQufOaqcU.

  25. Wow… Her ass is feeling jealous of all the s*** thats coming from her mouth.

    According to her, yes straight couples DO have a privilige. She is just hoping no one noticed.
    Way to try and evade the topic and giving an answer for a very valid question. And those morons are applauding her? Even though she contradicts herself? Boy, they really REALLY hate to think!

    I applaud those kids for being brave and thank them.

  26. benpinwang 3 Dec 2011, 9:16am

    Laughable nonsense from her again, I love it. 1. People were born into a land where some laws were already set by people who don’t know anything about the future. Therefore the laws should always be challenged and reshaped to fit the changing of time, needs, new developments and new discoveries; not to shape its people into the old laws. Laws have no life of their own, it’s people’s duty to make the laws fresh and fitting. 2. Public schools can not force people to pray. Look how Ms Bachman’s brain have been baked after all those prayer sessions she claims she had at her schools.

  27. Paddyswurds 3 Dec 2011, 10:45am

    Who really cares what this bigoted dinosaur thinks .She is most definitely yesterdays news just like the Palin bint. America has moved on even if the Republican bigots haven’t. She has as much chance of being American president as she has of stepping in Unicorn doo doo so don’t even waste another moments thought on her or her closet case “pray the gay away” convenience husband.

    1. Unfortunately quite a bit of the US voters? Which is equally disturbing.

    2. Jock S. Trap 18 Dec 2011, 9:47am

      I would agree who cares but she is clearly a danger around children so I care what impression she leaves.

  28. “I’m glad Bachmann wasn’t there for history. “Why can’t Rosa Parks sit at the front of the bus?”
    “She can sit,” Bachmann would say. “She can sit at the back of the bus.”
    I’m glad she isn’t my waiter. “Is there a vegetarian option?”
    “The vegetarian option is steak,” Bachmann would say, not blinking an eye.
    “Is there a way for people in wheel chairs to access the sixth floor?”
    “There’s a way. They can take the stairs,” Bachmann would say, still not blinking.
    “There doesn’t seem to be an option for Republicans to vote.”
    “Republicans can vote. They can vote Democrat like everyone else,” Bachmann would say, blinking a little in confusion.
    “I’d like to find a synagogue.”
    “There’s a synagogue right here,” Bachmann would say. “It’s a church.”
    “Do you have apples?”
    “Yes, I have oranges.”
    http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/

    1. de Villiers 3 Dec 2011, 9:30pm

      I agree. She could have added that marriage was like the Ritz hotel – open to all.

  29. “At first Bachmann’s remark seemed like a peculiar thing to say, coming on the heels of her sensible remark that, “I think we have forgotten what true tolerance means. True tolerance means allowing people to express themselves and their beliefs.”
    But then it made sense.
    As Bachmann would say, “We allow you to express different beliefs. You can express different beliefs that agree with us.”
    I’m guessing Bachmann’s never considered the idea of laws being changed (as they have in several states) to allow same-sex couples to be who they are.”
    http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/

  30. Keith, Kev, whatever your name is today, you clearly have a multiple personality disorder, along with your other mental health issues. I’ve told you before, seek medical help, you need medication.

  31. So any man is free to marry a woman and any woman is free to marry a man. Isn’t that discrimination based on gender, rather than discrimination based on sexual preference?

  32. Why not ban insulin? That would be fair and equal too, because although diabetics won’t be allowed to have any insulin, neither will anyone else!

    1. Its spelt “Insulin”.

      And its “lethal”

      And its “even kills innocent babies”, not “kills even innocent babies”

      And “Insulin is not ungodly and debase”, not “debased”

      You really need to give up the drink.

      LOL! Oh, classic! Is there any more evidence needed that religion (of the extreme ex-gay kind Keith belongs to) is a synonyms for idiot?

  33. Bachmann was asked why gay couples couldn’t marry, she didn’t really answer that question but replied by apparently saying a gay couple could marry a member of the opposite sex and this has confused me because wouldn’t it be polygamy if a gay couple married a member of the opposite sex as Bachmann appears to endorse in this video?

    1. David Myers 6 Dec 2011, 9:30am

      Just proves even she doesn’t listen to what she says.

  34. Crazy Bachmann say, ” If a gay couple is a woman they can marry a man and if a gay couple is a man they can marry a woman”

  35. de Villiers 3 Dec 2011, 9:31pm

    She could have added that marriage was like the Ritz hotel – open to all.

    1. There’s always the Chymorvah B&B… then aqgain maybe not.

  36. Its not really special rights to ask for SSM when she says gays can get married to women too. Then the same could be said to SSM where straight men could marry other men, so it isn’t special rights/privilege for gays at all, there is EQUAL opportunity.

    If laws are there to obey, then what’s she there babbling about praying in school for? Shouldn’t she say ‘you have to obey because its the law of the land’.

  37. If she means “this problem when we had prayer in schools”…as LGBTQ “problem”well in the 1950 we had prayer in schools and some of the following are famous LGBTQ from that time Clive Betts (politician),Kathy webb (politician),Peter McWilliams (social activist),Benjamin Cruz (Politician, Lawyer) and the list goes on. The problem was they had no rights back then so it was hidden

  38. Tony Romanelli 5 Dec 2011, 5:26am

    Go the 16 year old girl! As to the response given by Mrs Bachmann….hang your heade in shame lady!!!!!!

  39. Same sex marriage is not a special right and I’m sure just as many straight individuals will be queueing up eagerly to enter into same sex marriages as there are gay individuals queueing up eagerly to enter into opposite sex marriages, that’s equality.

  40. Jock S. Trap 18 Dec 2011, 9:44am

    This woman is clearly a danger around children and should never be near any let alone talk to any.

    Shameful woman. Then maybe we should make sure she gets treated the same way she treats others…. bet that wouldn’t go down well for long mind!!

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all