Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Video: Michele Bachmann says people of Iowa did not want gay marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Right – And people didn’t want to end slavery, and people didn’t want to give women the right to vote, and people didn’t want to integrate schools etc etc etc. The rights of the minority are not subject to the whims of the majority. That is elementary, which is probably why a mental void like Bachmann doesn’t understand.

    1. I’m not sure why Michelle Bachman has such a bug up her butt about gays consideriung that she married one. Valsky hit the nail on the head with his post above. Civil rights of a minority should not depend of the whims of a majority. Historically, women have been treated like cattle in Saudi Arabia. Does that make it right? Her logic is absurd. She obviously knows that this issue works politically for her with conservatives as a wedge issue and it garners votes.

      1. darkmoonman 5 Dec 2011, 5:55pm

        You hit the nail on the head: she married one. I’m sure that she, as did Anita Bryant with gay husband, was certain that she could “straighten” his out. She found out she can’t, so now she hates everyone who’s gay.

  2. The Byzantine empire allowed same sex marriage. It was also a Christian society and prospered for nearly 1000 years!!

  3. Commander Thor 5 Dec 2011, 1:03pm

    No more interracial marriage then.

    She said: “No, I don’t believe that it is. Marriage, historically, for all human history has been between a man and a woman. It hasn’t been the same-sex marriage. ”

    “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.”

    1. Then she’d better read the 14th amendment of the constitution guaranteeing the rights of the minority must be protected. This amendment could be the one that makes same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states, assuming five of the very conservative catholic judges of the Surpeme court of the U.S. uphold the constitution and follow it to the letter. I can imagine her outrage if that ever happens while we gloat.

  4. interesting

  5. How did marriage between a man and a Women begin ?

    1. Marriage developed to establish legitimacy and property, it predates christianity and modern religions by thousands of years. Would you like to be more specific in your question?

      1. I meant why was it put in,in the first place between a man and a women .

        So marriage wasn’t thought of ,then the next day it was .

        Sorry again I’m not good at explaining myself correctly .

        1. There is no historical record that we can successfully point at as being the first ever “marriage”. But artefacts from Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt show a legally understood framework of a relationship – with some degree of rules of who is entitled to what. If a woman is bound to a man, and there are rules that mean that commitment is understood by all, then any progeny of that relationship are legitimate and property can move from one generation to the next. As for why? Human nature, I suppose, the need to assert ownership and control.

          1. I personally think everything was changed to suit peoples preferences .

            What matters is that two people love each other and are committed to one another .

  6. Horrible bigoted witch

  7. Wendy Stobbie 5 Dec 2011, 1:43pm

    I agree with everything that you have said. What a stupid argument she puts up. Just because something was a certain way once doesn’t make it right !!!!

    1. Tradition alone is not a good reason for anything. Even the Buddha said that 2,500 years ago.

  8. I seriously doubt it was the intention of thethose who wrote the constitution that half witted self publicists like Micehlle Bachmann were to be allowed to run for president.

    Which lever do I pull to get her crushed by a safe?

    1. They certainly didn’t envisage women and African Americans running for president.

  9. Clearly, Bachmann does not understand the purpose of a public official to DECIDE on cases of LAW … or to use some alternative adjectives – an umpire, arbiter, assessor, referee etc …

    In the case of same sex marriage in Iowa, the judges made a decision and arbitrated based on the laws already passed by the Iowan legislature – they did not write new laws …

    Its worrying that Bachmann seems to believe it is appropriate for her to only appoint judges that concur with her perception of how the constitution of Iowa is interpreted (if elected) … The purpose of judicial review is to have scrutiny of elected representatives … otherwise democracy fails and (in Bachmanns case) we have right wing, neo Christian dictatorship …

    I suggest she arranges a seminar with Iowa Chief Justice Mark Cady (author of Iowa Practice: Lawyer and Judicial Ethics)

    This should be a huge alarm bell for the people of Iowa and the wider US that Backmann is a dangerous and would undermine American freedoms

    1. Can you imagine if things changed ,and that the people in the state wanted to Abolish Religion etc….what would Michelle say to that ?

      After all she did say it’s the voice of the people that counts .

      She would still contradict herself .

  10. douglas in canada 5 Dec 2011, 2:25pm

    HISTORICALLY, the US has never had a woman president. 50 years ago, if Michelle had run for president, the men would have told her to put her apron back on and get in the kitchen, once they had stopped laughing uproariously, and pulled themselves up off the floor.

    Get with the program, Bachman, things change, but life goes on.
    And by the way, the minister from your church would have reminded you that it is biblically inappropriate for women to speak publicly, or have authority over men.

  11. jamestoronto 5 Dec 2011, 3:28pm

    The intention of those who wrote the Constitution of the US was that woman should not even have the vote let alone be allowed to run for office. What was historically true and what is currently acceptable have no relation to one another otherwise we would still be in the Dark Ages.

  12. The day a rational or intelligent thought crosses her mind will be a momentous one.

    It’s quite scary that someone who doesn’t understand what the job of a supreme court judge is could be a contender for the presidency.

  13. Who are these people of Iowa? I never said I did not want gay marriage. I am from Iowa and I WANT GAY MARRIAGE. This insane religious fanatic Bachmann does not speak for all of the people. She and her “husband” are evil and need to arrested for crimes against humanity for the harm they do to LGBT people they try to brain wash into being straight when in fact God made them gay. God strikes these people down and in fact he does strike down evil anti gay people, I have seen Christians and their family be killed by having an accidents after they fail to help LGBT people or for attacking LGBT people. I have examples like one lady in government who said she was going to help LGBT people and then failed to help LGBT people and after did nothing the next day her young son dropped dead, for real. Evil done to LGBT people does not go unpunished by God, I have seen it.

    1. If you are gay then she probably doesn’t consider you to be a person at all Robert.

      I stayed in Iowa briefly in the late 1980’s, there was one gay club on the outskirts of town and the weekend before I went there had been some drive-by shootings, lots of rifle bullet holes peppered through the breeze block walls of the club on the side that faced the road.

      Now you have same sex marriage I don’t think this gormless Bachmann wonder nor NOM will manage to take it away from you.

  14. “They are judges. And they need to act like judges.” ….. but they are not supposed to state exactly what the Law is????? We all know this woman is dumb and stupid – does she have to remind us every time she opens her mouth?????

  15. This is just reminding me how depressing the elections in America are going to be, hopefully her husband will get caught with the pool boy and she will have to pull out of the race.

  16. If “judges that made the decision, not the legislature”, then why is there a BAN? Surely it’s possible to turn the tables and say there shouldn’t be a ban at all, because allowing gay marriage would not make a law that says ‘gays can marry’, it would mean the REMOVAL of a law that says ‘gays can’t get married’?

    Anyway, she should see what happens if the ban were to be lifted. Actually see if her little statistics come in to play.
    The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and her pudding will most definitely be burnt.

  17. Right, I’ve got my rights as a woman now. That’s all that matters to me. Anyone who wants their equality can go and whistle. I’m pulling the ladder up.

    Never ceases to amaze me how parties that advocate small government love big government when it comes to rights and equality.

  18. Ooer missus 5 Dec 2011, 7:12pm

    And I say the people of Iowa do not want Michele Bachman.

    They should start a constitutional amendment to ban her, not marriage equality.

  19. de Villiers 5 Dec 2011, 10:19pm

    It would be better for these matters of public policy to be determined by democratic legislatures. Abortion rights were defined by judges and as a result, they have never gained deep, democratic legitimacy. If, however, referendums or state legislatures pass gay marriage laws then they can properly be described as representing the democratic will – which no politician could then oppose.

    1. Spanner1960 6 Dec 2011, 12:29am

      Yes, but that is the whole crux of the argument: A decision may be democratic and follow the wishes of the majority of the people, but it does not necessarily mean it is right or just.

      A lynch mob want to have somebody strung up, which is totally democratic, but it is not right.
      Any law has to be concerned about the values and rights of the individual, as well as the rights of society as a whole.

  20. “She added that judges needed to stop telling people “what their laws are”.”

    So much stupidity in one sentence (−_−;)She makes me ashamed to be female every time she opens her mouth

  21. Derek Wain 6 Dec 2011, 1:20am

    This blog is unintentionally hilarious. The blogger is unaware that there is no pro-
    vision for “gay marriage” in Iowa. There are “civil unions.”
    “Gay marriage” is an oxymoron, since marriage means “a permanent union between one woman and man.”
    For 5000 years, “marriage” has meant “a contract between one man and one woman”, not some other random combination of humans because it feels good. That definition of marriage is the bedrock of human society. MB’s response meant that society should not endorse gay marriage by giving it the high status of “marriage”. Ignore the perverted and false “interpretations” of her comments by gay media bloggers. She remains the most principled Constitutional Conservative on the American political stage.
    This was a particularly moronic screed on MB’s commonsense response and instruction to clueless gay activist students. The radical left, gay media no longer even pretends to report political news but instead feeds us radical left gay propaganda.

  22. Hi Michele, hilarious to see that you are posting as Derek Wain here on a gay comments board,clearly you are as desperate as you are stupid.

    1. As can be seen in the list below, Iowa is one of the States that do have marriage equality.

      Same Sex Marriage In United States:
      CT, DC, IA, MA, NH, NY, VT, Coquille, Suquamish

  23. get out in that kitchen and rattle those pots and pans

    1. What is that supposed to mean? As she’s a woman she should be in a kitchen? If so you are no better than she is.

  24. Jock S. Trap 6 Dec 2011, 10:40am

    What concerns me most about this woman is the fact she happily promotes her bigotted agenda to children and the vunerable in society. This is not leadership.

    She has not right to tell another human being they are less of a human because of the way they were born based on a choose of a religious lifestyle.

    Bigots like Michele Bachmann have no right to be in poisitions of power and certainly to lead a country.

    If she wants hate them may I suggest she moves to somewhere like Iran… mind you as if they don’t have enough problems already.

    1. If the converse of what Bachmann stated was the case and the law now said that all citizens have the equal right only to marry a same sex partner, she would, after her recent statement, have to agree and accept that heterosexual individuals are not being discriminated against even though they are not allowed to legally marry an opposite sex partner.

  25. Jock S. Trap 18 Dec 2011, 10:27am

    Oh when will this woman shut up. She’s become boring.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all