|
Michele Bachmann on Civil Rights
Republican Representative (MN-6)
|
Fight the faddish fog of feminism
[In the 1980s] I had to see through the faddish fog of "feminism," the radical school of thought propounded by such well-known figures as Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem. I'm all for strong women as role models. Yet in the
70s, women were solemnly instructed by the liberal media to believe that family, tradition, and even faith were merely the disguised manifestations of an oppressive "patriarchy." We were further told that "women" wanted to be liberated--as if "women"
were a bloc, and as if liberals knew what was good for all of us, all across the country.I rejected that kind of feminism. I was repulsed by the generalized worldview of liberal-left feminism, which tended to say things like, "A woman needs a man
like a fish needs a bicycle." It's a free country, of course, and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but I wanted no part of an ideology that praised wives being apart from husbands of children being apart from fathers.
Source: Core of Conviction, by Michele Bachmann, p. 76-77
, Nov 21, 2011
How dare a court force same-sex morality on the people
In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples had a legal right to marry and the court further ordered the MA state legislature to pass a law to that effect. How dare the court order legislators to pass a law in conformity
with their personal morality and opinion of a bare majority of justices--the vote was 4 to 3--not in conformity with the majority of people in the Bay State. America had always agreed that marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman.
In addition, our Constitution prefers that the courts should interpret the law, not make the law. Otherwise, legislators are irrelevant, as is the will of the people.Of course, at the same time, I wasn't completely surprised by the MA ruling, because
I knew that judges had gotten I the habit of legislating from the bench. I could see why judges might like to run the whole government; the only problem was, it's unconstitutional. Indeed, in the US Constitution, the judicial branch is listed third.
Source: Core of Conviction, by Michele Bachmann, p.128-129
, Nov 21, 2011
MN needs constitutional amendment on marriage, despite DOMA
In the US Constitution, the judicial branch is listed third, in Article III. Thomas Jefferson said that the courts were to be the least powerful of the three branches of government. The federal branches are equal, but the same time,
James Madison chose to enumerate the powers of the judiciary after those of the other two branches. But here we were now, confronting a whole new vista of judicial activism, and who was to say it would stop with Massachusetts?
Minnesota had a "DOMA" statute, modeled after the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that was passed with strong bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress and signed by President Clinton. But even so, I could see the possibility that the
Minnesota Supreme Court could copy the Massachusetts ruling. That meant there was only one sure way to stop such a ruling: Pass a constitutional amendment in the state of Minnesota.
Source: Core of Conviction, by Michele Bachmann, p.129
, Nov 21, 2011
I support federal AND state marriage amendments
SANTORUM: [to Bachmann]: We can't have 50 marriage laws. This was the approach that the left took on abortion, which is to pick a few states, and then go to the Supreme Court and say "equal protection," then you will have at the Supreme Court deciding
what marriage is in this country. You have to fight in each state. And there's where I disagree with Rick Perry, I disagree with Michele Bachmann. I will come to the states and fight to make sure this strategy of picking off a state here and there does
not be successful in transforming marriage.BACHMANN: I support the federal marriage amendment, because I believe that we will see this issue at the Supreme Court someday. And as president, I will not nominate activist judges who legislate from the
bench. I also want to say, when I was in Minnesota, I was the chief author of the constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man, one woman. I have an absolutely unblemished record when it comes to this issue of man-woman marriage.
Source: Iowa Straw Poll 2011 GOP debate in Ames Iowa
, Aug 11, 2011
Children need mother & father; but let states decide
Q: New Hampshire is one of five states where gays can marry legally. As president, would you try to overturn state laws, despite your own personal belief that states should handle their own affairs whenever possible?BACHMANN: Well, I do believe in the
10th Amendment and I do believe in self-determination for the states. I also believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I carried that legislation when I was a senator in Minnesota, and I believe that for children, the best possible way to raise
children is to have a mother and father in their life.
Q: What would a President Bachmann do to initiate or facilitate a repeal law on the state level?
BACHMANN: I'm running for the presidency of the United States. And
I don't see that it's the role of a president to go into states and interfere with their state laws. I do support a constitutional amendment on marriage between a man and a woman, but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.
Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in Manchester NH
, Jun 13, 2011
Keep Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell in
Q: Now gays are allowed to serve openly in the military; would you leave that policy in place or would you try to change it back to "don't ask/don't tell"?GINGRICH: Both the Army and the Marines overwhelmingly opposed changing it. And if as president-
I've met with them and they said it isn't working and we should go back, I would listen to the commanders whose lives are at risk about the young men and women that they are, in fact, trying to protect.
BACHMANN: I would keep the "don't ask/don't tell"
policy.
Q: So you would--whatever the Obama administration does now--you would try to go back? You'd try to reverse what they're doing?
BACHMANN: I would, after, again, following much what the speaker just said, I would want to confer with our
commanders-in-chief and with--also with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because I'd want to know how it was being implemented and if it has--had had the detrimental effects that have been suggested that will come.
Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in Manchester NH
, Jun 13, 2011
Counselor/husband: "pray away the gay"
Bachmann [is involved in a] brouhaha over her counselor/husband Dr. Marcus Bachmann. He's the one who insists you can "pray away the gay." He's compared bisexuals and gays to "barbarians" who must be "disciplined."
Meanwhile, she has lamented that involvement in "the gay and lesbian lifestyle" means "personal bondage" linked to "Satan."It didn't take long for social media, then the blogosphere, then cable
TV and finally the mainstream media to gingerly address the question: is Marcus Bachmann, like so many virulent anti-gay crusaders before him, a gay guy in denial? I suppose the Bachmann campaign could present Marcus as proof that "praying away
the gay" really works.
More likely the campaign will ignore it all -- until some brassy reporter asks her, or him. And ironically, among social conservatives who adore her, speculation about her husband will only win her votes.
Source: Margery Eagan in the Boston Herald
, Jul 24, 2010
Authored constitutional amendment defining marriage
I was the chief author of a constitutional amendment in the Minnesota Senate defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I will continue to support traditional marriage as a union between a man and woman.
Source: 2006 House campaign website, michelebachmann.com, “Issues”
, Nov 7, 2006
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation.
HR3685: Employment Non-Discrimination Act: Makes it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against an individual on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, including actions based on the actual or perceived sexual orientation of a person with whom the individual associates or has associated. Prohibits preferential treatment or quotas. Allows only disparate treatment claims. Inapplicable to associations that are exempt from religious discrimination provisions.Proponents support voting YES because:
Rep. CASTOR: The march towards equality under the law for all of our citizens has sometimes been slow, but it has been steady. Over time, Congress has outlawed discrimination in the workplace, based upon a person's race, gender, age, national origin, religion and disability, because when it comes to employment, these decisions are rightly based upon a person's qualifications and job performance. This legislation that outlaws job discrimination based upon
sexual orientation was first introduced over 30 years ago. A broad coalition of businesses and community organizations strongly support this landmark civil rights legislation, including the Human Rights Campaign; the Anti-Defamation League; and the NAACP.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Rep. HASTINGS: Federal law bans job discrimination based on race, color, national origin, or gender. In addition, 19 States have passed laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I strongly oppose discrimination in the workplace. However, I do not think it is the place of the Federal Government to legislate how each and every workplace operates. A number of States have enacted State laws in this area. That is their right. Many businesses have chosen to adopt their own policies. That is appropriate as well. This bill as written would expand Federal law into a realm where PERCEPTION would be a measure under discrimination law [which I consider inappropriate].
Reference: Employment Non-Discrimination Act;
Bill HR3685
; vote number 2007-1057
on Nov 13, 2007
Page last updated: Feb 23, 2012