Bachmann would back amendment to overturn NY marriage law

what a crazy bitch...

 

Ugh >_< I swear to god if another Prop 8 happens, there will be HELL to pay.

 

so the anti-constitution, anti-federal goverment, anti-federal powers politician is now claiming she is pro-constitution, pro-federal goverment, pro-federal powers when it comes to denying tax paying americans their civil rights!

FIRST, HYPOCRITICAL HOEBAG, PAY BACK THE QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS YOU GET IN GOVERMENT SUBSIDIARIES FOR YOUR FARM, SINCE I THOUGHT YOU WERE AGAINST ANYTHING THAT FALLS UNDER YOUR DEFINITION OF 'SOCIALISEM'. I AM SURE YOU CAN MAKE QUITE ALOT OF MONEY IN FEES SPEAKING TO FACISETS, RACISTS, ANTI-SEMITES, HOMOPHOBES, AND FUNDIE CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS TO MAKE UP FOR NOT GETTING GOVERMENT HANDOUTS YOU CLAIM TO BE AGAINST!

oh, and if your so against pork barrel spending, STOP ASKING FOR IT!

Sorry. but Bachman just pisses me off because she has no scruples, morals, ethics, or intelligence. She is a parrot for the extreme right wing whack jobs that keep blowing up doctor clinics.

 

>>>she has no scruples, morals, ethics or intelligence
That has been a requirement to serve in the U.S. Congress for the past century so what's the big deal?

And yes...Lord knows we have had an epidemic recently of abortion clinic bombings...I must have missed that bit of news in between switching between the nightly news and Iron Chief America on the Food Network.

 

Ember...Red...please...just don't.

 

There needs to be a special debate forum just for them...oh wait, it's called private message.

 

Just got to keep on our toes a bit but not give in. Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. Fortunately some of us have the power of rhetoric and it will be used to maintain equality. I am determined to do all I can and to encourage those around me to do the same to keep our hard won territory and ever expand it. The other side won't win. Not since we have come this far. But we still have to put our collective foot down and say "No."

 

Erm her stances make no SENSE. lol They go against each other...

 

That is unlikely. Prop 8 was introduced to combat a Supreme Court Ruling. In this case, gay marriage was legalized by a legislative bill. Two very different situations.

 

I love this quote.lol

Michele Bachmann, queen of the right | World news | The Observer

Seriously, are Republicans trying to make women seem dumb so that the chances of they running for President go down... Or is it just how most Republican women are? Or are the Reps afraid of Democrat-Hilary(a woman) running again for President in the future and winning, soo they are giving women a bad image?

 

you just can't make up how hypocritical some politicians are.

Nor how stupid the Republicans seem to like their female candidates.

 

Surely we knew this already from the last Republican Primary Debate?

Most of the candidates advocate a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. In the debate I saw, only Ron Paul and Cain were not advocating it.

 

All this talk of constitutional amendments is just airy blather in an attempt to get in the media, really.

Amending the constitution would take a 2/3rds vote in both house and senate. Let me put that again: 66% of the population and 66% of the states has to explicitely endorse this.

None of the current republican candidates (or of the dems for that matter) has the political capital to command such a majority. I don't think any president since Reagan had the capital to make any amendment happen (last amendment ratified was under Clinton, but it was one pending since the times of the founders, so you could say it went through on the political capital of the War of Independence )
You can easily find more than 33% to vote it down out of simple spite for whoever is the next president. Not to mention that some of the most vehement opponents of gay marriage would also be weary about the federal level claiming the right to regulate it over the states' heads in the first place.

Alternatively, you could convene a convention of the states, but then you have to have a 3/4ths ruling in favour. That's 75%!

Allow me to post a rolleyes smiley and treat this "amendment" stuff with the silence it deserves :rolle:

 

relevant

 

I thought for sure there was a separation of church and state

 

There is an implied notion of separation of Church and State within the US Government, but there is nothing in the Constitution that directly states it. The only real reference to religion in the Constitution is in the Establishment Clause which states that the Government can not establish a state sponsored religion.

Bachmann's problem with this is she needs to decide one over the other, meaning that you can't advocate and say that it is a state issue and you support state's rights and then turn right around and declare the federal government should intervene with a constitutional amendment (which I think is silly anyway).

 

I believe the US Supreme Court cleared that implied notion. And the answer was... Yes, there is a separation. =P

Bachman clearly doesn't like the US Supreme Court (I don't think many Reps do)... She said they shouldn't be "legislating from the bench." So it was up to an amendment and Congress to clarify what marriage is...

Yes, I know... Wikipedia is not a reliable source. However, the info is true.
Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

^ This.