High School Student Fights Bachmann on Gay Marriage Stance at Town Hall Meeting
- Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:08pm by
Tiffany Gabbay
- Print »
- Email »
A cozy town hall meeting with Michele Bachmann at the Waverly Pizza Ranch in Iowa took a twist Wednesday when a student questioned the GOP presidential contender’s views on same-sex marriage and of what she would do for the gay and lesbian community as president.
“All of us as Americans have the same rights, we have the same civil rights,” Bachmann told 16-year-old Jane Schmidt, who identified herself as a member of the school’s GSA, the alliance advocating for the rights of gay and straight students.
“There shouldn’t be any special rights or any special set of criteria,” Bachmann continued. “We all have the same civil rights. ”
But that didn’t sit well with the student, who said that members of the gay and lesbian community do not have the same rights because they can’t get married.
In response, Bachmann said, “There are no special rights for people based upon your sex practices.”
“There’s no special rights based upon what you do in your sex life. You’re an American citizen first and foremost and that’s it.”
Bachmann reiterated that marriage is between a “man and a woman” and that it is still “the law of the land.”
The Republican candidate received applause from the audience for her answers:
Iowa Caucuses provides a partial transcript of the exchange below:
JANE SCHMIDT: One of my main concerns is government support for the LGBT community. So my question is what would you do to protect GSAs in high school and support the LGBT community.
BACHMANN: Well, number one, all of us as Americans have the same rights. The same civil rights. And so that’s really what government’s role is, to protect our civil rights. There shouldn’t be any special rights or special set of criteria based upon people’s preferences. We all have the same civil rights.
JANE SCHMIDT: Then, why can’t same-sex couples get married?
BACHMANN: They can get married, but they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they’re a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they’re a man.
JANE SCHMIDT: Why can’t a man marry a man?
BACHMANN: Because that’s not the law of the land.
JANE SCHMIDT: So heterosexual couples have a privilege.
BACHMANN: No, they have the same opportunity under the law. There is no right to same-sex marriage.
JANE SCHMIDT: So you won’t support the LGBT community?
BACHMANN: No, I said that there are no special rights for people based upon your sex practices. There’s no special rights based upon what you do in your sex life. You’re an American citizen first and foremost and that’s it.
ELLA NEWELL, a junior at Waverly High School: Wouldn’t heterosexual couples, if they were given a privilege then, that gay couples aren’t, like given that privilege to get married, but heterosexual couples are given a privilege to get married?
BACHMANN: Remember every American citizen has the right to avail themselves to marriage but they have to follow what the laws are. And the laws are you marry a person of the opposite sex.
(h/t: Gawker)
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 695 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 503 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 351 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 339 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 327 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 327 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 339 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 251 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 327 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (690)
survivorseed
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:28pmGays can get married…just look at marcus and michelle, you gotta live a lie but hey, you’re married
Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:43pmDon’t you mean Bill and Hillary? Barry and Moochelle?
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:47pmBachmann gave the appropriate answer. Until such time as the laws of this country are different our rights are as the laws provide. Heterosexuals are under the same law as homosexuals. Do certain sexual proclivities need special laws to accomodate them perhaps and if so…which sexual proclivities don’t get to be included? Is this what the unfortunate child at the meeting and you are advocating?
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:48pmSo Marcus is gay because? Cher (the mother of a transgender) claimed it? You liberals kill me with your misinformation and flat out lies based on rumors.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:49pmYay character assassination…
That aside, Bachmann is wrong. There is no homogenized law of the land when it comes to who can get married; there is just DOMA, which declares federal recognition for marriage benefits can only go to heterosexual couples. Who can actually get married varies state by state.
She avoided answering the question; a proper answer would have been “As president I would treat all citizens the same. That said, I would not support a LGBT effort to create a federal law requiring that federal marriage benefits be conferred to same sex couples, as I do not believe the founding fathers or our Constitution would approve of it.”
Of course, that‘s a logical answer that actually wouldn’t evade the question, and I don’t expect that from Bachmann.
Report Post »Lather
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:49pmReally? Idiot response.
Report Post »recoveringneocon
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:55pm@rep. Bachmann,
Report Post »Next time your asked a question on Gay Marriage, the answer should be “There is no mention of that in theU. S. Constitution, so I would have to say that’s a State issue and Sweaty you should talk to your Governor, State Senator and State Rep.
Locked
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:57pm@Avenger
“Until such time as the laws of this country are different our rights are as the laws provide. Heterosexuals are under the same law as homosexuals. Do certain sexual proclivities need special laws to accomodate them perhaps and if so…which sexual proclivities don’t get to be included?”
Actually, there are already laws accommodating heterosexuals; specifically, DOMA, which says the federal government can only recognize heterosexual marriage for the purpose of conferring benefits.
The student asked a poor question: instead of something vague, she should have focused on DOMA or federal recognition of same sex marriage. Bachmann, in a similar manner, chose an evasion instead of an answer: she didn’t answer the question of “how would you protects GSAs in school and support the LBGT community,” but instead sidestepped in an effort to not offend the high school students.
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:10pmBachmann is the real deal on almost all issues.
Report Post »Sleazy Hippo
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:10pmIt was good she did not let a High school punk get a point across.
smackdown33
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:16pmThe state has no obligation to promote or protect any human to human relationship, except the biological necessary one of opposite sex.
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:20pmYou are a perfect example of why gays are suffering from sort of bent reality
According to you, anyone that supports your non-sense is 100 percent straight and anyone who objects in anyway are actually the homosexuals.
You are laughable
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:31pmGays are not suffering any more than anyone else. They just whine more than everyone else.
Report Post »Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:39pmSo, a law that says that a man can only marry a woman and a woman can only marry a man is NOT a special right afforded to Christian believers and forced on everyone else?
Only in the warped minds of the Jesus freaks is that NOT a special right that favors one belief system over another.
STOP TRYING TO FORCE YOUR FAIRY TALE BELIEFS ON OTHERS. You absolutely hate it when it happens to you.
Jesus isn’t coming back. He’s dead. Enough of grown ups believing in clearly made up garbage. Get a brain already.
theaveng
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:57pmDEAR MICHELLE:
There used to be a law that forbade Blacks and whites from marrying. In Germany there used to be laws that forbade Jews from marrying non-jews. That was the law of the land, but it was overturned because it violated the natural right of a human being to marry any other human being he/she wished.
Laws that violate innate natural rights to be Free need to be destroyed.
AvengerK
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:58pmI’m sorry…LOCKED…can you mince words a little more for me please? You didn’t play enough semantics with the Defense of Marriage Act. I‘m also surprised that you’d like that dimwitted little high school girl even more marinated and indoctrinated in your leftist ideals that she should be nitpicking DOMA with a congresswoman..apparently she just didn’t know enough talking points for you? Let’s call her teachers and make sure she has all that useful information while her competitors in China and India get a higher standard of education and take her jobs from her. I mean..it’s more important that homosexuals get married right?
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 6:05pmNo DAS KAPITAL QUOTIN’, CHRISTIAN FEARIN’, LEFTY…..it’s not a special right for anyone. It’s an established legal standing pertaining to Federal Government. This is why states can hold referendums and allow their electorates to vote to recognize or not to recognize homosexual marriage. Is this beyond you? You demand a brain of everyone else..yet you seem to have left yours in it’s atrophied state at the delivery room.
Report Post »Nehemiah6.3
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 6:09pmShe said the right thing. God has not given gay or lesbian people the right to marry. God gives us our rights, not the government. In order to preserve our freedom we must be a moral people and homosexuality is not moral. it is wrong. A republic can only be maintained by a moral people, the government is a reflection of its people. Period.
AvengerK
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 6:19pmTHEAVENG…“natural right”? Seriously? Marriage is both a spiritual and legal contract depending on where one approaches it from. Can you tell me where “natural” comes into it other than one cannot procreate without the exlusive contributions of one man and one woman? Can you tell me what’s “natural” about men who have sex with other men that consistently make up less than 2% of the population but they constitute about 55% of people who get HIV every year – that’s an overrepresentation of 2,750%. Does all that look “natural” to you? So you’re ready to tell me that an overrepresentation of 2,750% in the instances of HIV infection by homosexual men is a “natural” occurence and not the product of an UNNATURAL sexual practice? Please….I’d like you to respond to that.
Report Post »Itchee Dryback
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 6:25pmBible Quotin‘ Science Fearin’ Conservative American
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:39pm
So, a law that says that a man can only marry a woman and a woman can only marry a man is NOT a special right afforded to Christian believers and forced on everyone else?
_________________________________________________________________
That is correct. It is not a special right.
Report Post »You seem to be a bigot. Why in the world would a rational person claim that only Christians can get married?
Have you confronted this character flaw in yourself yet?
Itchee Dryback
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 6:28pmLather
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:49pm
Really? Idiot response.
____________________________________
My! What a compelling argument.
Report Post »Idiot response indeed.
Itchee Dryback
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 6:32pmtheaveng
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:57pm
DEAR MICHELLE:
There used to be a law that forbade Blacks and whites from marrying. In Germany there used to be laws that forbade Jews from marrying non-jews.
______________________________________________
Those laws discriminated against one group of people.
Report Post »Marriage laws do not.
What don’t you understand about that fact?
razor419
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 7:09pm@locked – i don’t know who you are… but you are really annoying. i’d hate to work or live with you… someone who always thinks they’re the smartest guy in the world.
Report Post »Navyveteran
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 7:21pmBible Quotin‘ Science Fearin’ Conservative American
You’re arguing the wrong point there. What we should be arguing about is whether the government has the right to say who gets married and who doesn’t. Marriage should be only done by the church. This may be upsetting but God was the first to institute marriage with Adam and Eve. He did this so mankind can procreate and to have a strong foundation for children growing up. As far as I know two men having sex can’t procreate and neither can two women procreate while having sex. Every study I have ever read proves that children do better spiritually, physically, and mentally when they have a father and a mother. This is no slight on single parenting or a homosexual couple that has adopted, this is just the truth. Kids do better all around with a mommy and a daddy, not two daddy‘s or two mommy’s or just a mommy or just a daddy.
And if homosexuality is so natural why is this agenda shoving their lifestyle down the throats of the children in schools? If this is a natural act why don’t we see this in the animal kingdom. Yes I know the arguements of dogs and other animals. However, this is for showing dominance and there is not any penetration. We can’t say the same about two men and what is natural sticking a penis into the anus? Growing up with animals I have never seen any animal penis going into the same sex animals anus. Until then that arguement is a strawman arguement
Report Post »Hossua
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 7:22pmFirst off, why the hell do you care if **** want to marry. Second, how is homosexual marriage a federal issue. Hypocrite Republicans.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 7:46pmIt’s not fair. Why can’t I marry my doorknob? Just because you can’t understand the special relationship I have with my doorknob, doesn’t invalidate my feelings for my doorknob, or my doorknob’s feelings for me.
I’m tired of being singled out. I‘m tired of the dirty looks and the hate when I’m in public with my doorknob. I should have the right to leave my money to my doorknob. My doorknob and I should have the legal right to adopt children. I should be able to deduct my doorknob as a dependent on my taxes.
I will not rest until every man, woman and child in America…no, the world!…recognizes man-doorknob relationships.
Caunotaucarius
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 8:04pmHaha Bachmann confuses rights and laws. You have the right to do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t hurt other people. Ever hear of the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If someone wants to be homosexual that is their right, and it is a special privilege of heterosexual couples to get married since the economic benefits under tax laws bestow upon them. Bachmann is a dope, she does a good job of remaining calm and continuing with her contradictory stances though.
Report Post »Mil Mom
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 8:22pm@Bible Quotin‘ Science Fearin’ Conservative American
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:39pm
So, a law that says that a man can only marry a woman and a woman can only marry a man is NOT a special right afforded to Christian believers and forced on everyone else?
Only in the warped minds of the Jesus freaks is that NOT a special right that favors one belief system over another.
STOP TRYING TO FORCE YOUR FAIRY TALE BELIEFS ON OTHERS. You absolutely hate it when it happens to you.
Jesus isn’t coming back. He’s dead. Enough of grown ups believing in clearly made up garbage. Get a brain already.
Report Post »*****
Look, stop trying to force the rest of us with your 75 mph law junk, I can go as fast as I want, don’t have to believe in your fairy tale world! Uh-oh! What’s that siren, I don’t believe in colored lights, I’ll just speed up & ignore it!
Mil Mom
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 8:27pm@theaveng
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:57pm
DEAR MICHELLE:
There used to be a law that forbade Blacks and whites from marrying. In Germany there used to be laws that forbade Jews from marrying non-jews. That was the law of the land, but it was overturned because it violated the natural right of a human being to marry any other human being he/she wished.
Laws that violate innate natural rights to be Free need to be destroyed.
Report Post »***
AFTER ALL, MY CAMEL AND I HAVE BEEN IN LOVE FOR A LONG TIME NOW! We have as much right to marry as any man & woman or man & man, or woman & woman! You’re violating my rights saying marriage has to be between 2 humans only!
Locked
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 8:39pm@Razor
” i don’t know who you are… but you are really annoying. i’d hate to work or live with you… someone who always thinks they’re the smartest guy in the world.”
Yeah, little things like “facts” drive folks like you and Avenger nuts, don’t they? I wish we could all resort to evasions without substance like Bachmann, but alas, people who actually aren‘t blinded by their devotion to her will need to point out the truth of the terrible way she’s running a campaign.
Report Post »SAM1234
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 8:54pmNavyveteran,
First, humans aren’t animals. We shouldn’t base our society and rights on what animals do. And besides, haven’t you ever watched animal planet? A simple Google search for “homosexual sexual behavior in animals” will direct you to a wikipedia page with countless cited examples of homosexual animal practices. Again, that doesn‘t even matter because humans aren’t animals.
Second, arguments about heterosexual relationships being the most “natural” are tired. People used those same arguments against interracial marriages, to sanction slavery, advance Manifest Destiny, etc. They sure sound stupid now… Saying something is natural doesn’t get you anywhere. Natural to who? You? Homosexual relationships certainly feel natural to people who are homosexual. Don’t you think?
Finally, aren’t Republicans and libertarians supposed to advocate for less government restrictions and greater personal freedom? Don’t let the government tax me, don’t restrict my gun rights, don’t regulate business, don’t spend on welfare/social security/healthcare. But banning gay marriage is the proper role for government? Proponents of gay marriage just want the government out of their business. Can’t conservatives sympathize with that?
Report Post »Ruler4You
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 9:02pmI have to agree with MB, here.
If the kid wants to get married to his quarterback, I say let ‘em. His mama has to be very proud, though. That’s for sure.
Report Post »BubbaCoop
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 9:28pm“Until such time as the laws of this country are different our rights…”
You’re veering off the track here. The law and our rights are not the same thing. Rights come from God. Our laws are supposed to protect those rights. Laws are not truly valid if they don‘t don’t reflect the standard of God-given rights.
Report Post »Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 10:31pmQuote from a moron: “This may be upsetting but God was the first to institute marriage with Adam and Eve”
This is a major part of the problem. Some people believe the above statement is true. Some don’t. The one’s that do have no problem with big government forcing their belief on others. Or the other Einstein who equated gay marriage to marrying your door knob. Or the person who thinks that people are not animals, presumably because they don‘t believe in evolution and thinks we’re made in god’s image.
Either you have life liberty and pursuit of happiness for all or you have it for some and restrict if for others because of of an ancient belief structure from a book of made up stories.
Sorry, but Christianity and its oppressive beliefs are on the way out simply because of increased widespread education. It’s happening right before your eyes. Less and less young people are inclined to believe your garbage. Have fun losing your grip on the country one decade at a time.
Well, at least you can still cling to your guns and your religion, in your trailer park.
Report Post »stifroc
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 10:48pm@Bible Quotin‘ Science Fearin’ Conservative American
You know muslims say marriage is between a man and woman ONLY. Gay marriage is outlawed in every muslim nation! In fact under sharia it is lawful to KILL homosexuals.
Yet I don’t see you casting a stone in their direction… hmmmm… perhaps your just a biggot towards christians? Whoop! 8O
Report Post »ShyLow
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 11:19pmAs long as it is a black guy marrying a white guy,most people on here would be OK with it…reason being,they are still affraid of being called a racist
Report Post »Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 11:37pmI‘m addressing a bunch of hypocrite christians so that’s why I’m singling christianity out.
For the record though, the world could do with less of all religion, including the muslim religion.
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 12:56amI am a Heterosexual man.
According to Michelle Bachmann,
The Constitution gives me the right to marry whatever woman I want so long as she likewise wants to marry me. I would be very upset if the Constitution said I could only marry women of a certain hair color or weight range or height, etc…
The constitution says All Men are Created Equal.
The Equal Rights Amendment says Men and Women are to be treated the same under the law.
Hence, According to the law Man = Woman and Woman = Man.
THEREFORE
According to Michelle Bachmann,
The constitution gives me the right to marry what Man I want so long as He likewise wants to marry me.
Your face when I blow your mind
Report Post »jawdropped.gif
your sensei
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 12:56am@JACYN . . . I’m just gonna use you because there is way too much idiocy in this thread to address it all. So, you’re the one . . . .Why can’t you marry a doorknob? You can, just as soon as the doorknob consents.
As for Bachmann, at least she’s found a debate opponent she can handle – a 13-year-old kid. That doesn‘t change the fact that she’s not willing to grant someone special rights based on sexual identity, but she’s willing to deny a right based on sexual identity.
As for the rest of your repressed Christian freaks, well I leave you to your poor hateful misguided selves.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 1:01amMichelle got quite a few things correct…it is the law of the land…you shouldn’t have “special” rights because of your sexual practices…. the only religion that isn‘t tolerated in America’s schools is christianity… the “federal” public school system needs to be abolished..so on and so on.. …remember the truth has no agenda.
Report Post »Wayner
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 1:34amThe filthy practice of sodomy is illegal in most states and anyone participating in it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law…. even if they are a wealthy business “man” and got married in Iowa but live in NC which prohibits gay marriage.
Report Post »TH30PH1LUS
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 2:17amI agree with Michele Bachmann
Report Post »DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 2:25am@bible quotin
Um… since you believe in evolution… survival of the fittest. Gays lose. Sorry, that’s a biological fact. I have gay friends and I am not a pagan/christian.
I am willing to take God out of the argument as you can see and that makes it easier to defeat your logic.
I am married and I do not think the federal (or state/local) gov should be “marrying” people. The special privilege gays do not get is a tax-break. This is twisted. Especially if we are “citizens first and foremost”.
To all you “christians”, in Scripture, SEX is marriage. Marriage is not magic words from a J.P. or clergy. Marriage is not a tax break.
To you Bible Quotin Simpleton… all the gun clingers you talk about? Survival of the fittest. You lose.
Report Post »MsUnderestimated
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 3:37am@survivorseed – What are you, 12?
Report Post »KTsayz
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 4:29amSometimes I think this is more of an issue than it needs be. I’m not sure why we even need a man-made law about it except because of tax codes. If they cut out the legality of it and let houses of worship decide who they will and will not marry, the problem is fixed. It’s because they do the unConstitutional thing and tax married people differently than singles that this whole mess has grown. Get rid of the IRS and leave it to the church, synagogue, etc to decide who is married in the eyes of the Lord.
Report Post »loriann12
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 6:37amExactly. I don’t have the right to marry a woman either. I can marry any man I want. They want MORE than equal rights. Just like the lesbians in the military who found men to marry them so they could get spousal benefits, while living with each other. There is nothing stopping lesbians and gays from co-habitating. Just like there’s nothing stopping a man and woman living together without marriage. This is just an attempt to ruin America through no procreation.
Report Post »Pujols
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 7:22amKids are being Brain washed. 30 years ago the Kid would have known it was wrong.
Report Post »Robots & Puppets!
maumau
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 8:02amHaha its so funny to hear you all take your rage out on us Christians because you cant wrap your brain around the concept of real love, but what you don’t understand is that your comments have no weight on us. Go ahead call us freaks, morons, fairy tale livers, white trash, bigots, racist and anything else you can think of you are attempting to take a wall 50 ft high and you are an inch tall. Simple nature and logic dictate that the LGTB community is wrong, that’s why they hide it, they have to “come out”, they cant procreate and they feel they have to “belong” with the rest of us. If they were proud to be different and still normal they would be content, like doorknob guy, but they’re not. They want to force us into their theology, their practices, their wants they want to be like the rest of us with one small difference. And they can get married anywhere anytime, its about the commitment to a person you love but they want it validated by the rest of the normal world when validation just from the person you love should be enough but its not. Nothing will ever be enough until you know the full extent of HIS love then we wont even need to talk about this stuff.
Report Post »JimCDew
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 8:27amNOTE TO EVERYONE!!!! NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO BE MARRIED!!! IN EACH STATE, MARRIAGE IS A LICENSED ACTIVITY JUST LIKE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE!!!! Marriage is not mentioned as a right in the U.S. Constitution. If a state wants to permit the licensing of same sex couples to marry they may do so without violating the U.S. Constitution, or they may deny marriage to same sex couples if they so choose. People, get over yourselves and live by the law.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 8:44am@Godlovinmom
“Michelle got quite a few things correct…it is the law of the land…”
I find it amusing that you start off saying she got “quite a few things right” and then the item you mention immediately following that statement is patently false.
There is no federal law banning or allowing marriage; it is a state-by-state issue. DOMA refers to federal recognition for benefits, not “what marriage is allowed” at all. If you live in several states, “any two consenting adults can marry” is the law of the land.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 8:50am@JIMCDEW
“NOTE TO EVERYONE!!!! NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO BE MARRIED!!!”
False. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld that marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man” (Loving v Virginia, 1967). They have not, however, ruled that same-sex marriage is a right (nor have they ruled against it, it should be noted). I don’t think you meant to say “right” in your post though… seems more like you meant something like “marriage is not defined at a federal level.”
Report Post »just_around
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 9:01amHomosexuals can be married. It is recognized by the state and federal government for tax purposes because the Constitution defines marriage as being between a man and woman. There are provisions for amendments to the Constitution for other definitions, but it is not within the power of the President to simply change and allow whatever he/she wants. That’s tyranny and dictatorship.
Sadly I know the student asking the question neither understood the answer nor will care. All they will hear is “Bachmann hates gays and lesbians”.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 9:22am@Just_Around
“because the Constitution defines marriage as being between a man and woman.”
Report Post »(Raises an eyebrow)
Are you talking about the US Constitution? Some state constitutions may say this, but the actual Constitution does not ever state it. Why else would there be a push for an amendment codifying marriage as man-and-women only?
ThemDemsLie2much
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 9:38amI did not know that Marriage was a privilege! I was brought up to believe it was a commitment between a man and a women to unite together under the eyes of God. Why can’t the Gays come up with their own name to call a commitment between two people of the same sex? Sign a legally binding contract to commit to the same rules as a marriage and low and behold, your on your way to loosing half of what you have. Everybody is happy! Anything else is a special right and lets face it, that’s what they want here. Just like every so called minority group in this country. Lets elect the first Gay president just because he is Gay! Let elect the first Latino just because he is Latino. Experience does not matter here. Lets re-elect the disaster we have now just so we can be a part of the first black man to steal two terms from our country. Sorry I drifted a bit of subject but to the Gay community, stop asking us to reword our bible. It isn‘t going to happen and for those who don’t even believe, why do you even care how you appear to God?
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 9:46amNot voting for her anyway.
Report Post »Ron Paul 2012.
objectivetruth
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 9:50am@avenger
Report Post »Re:
Nazi Germany reference
German nationals married to jewish spouses were given two choices either get a divorce or be put in the concentration camps.The couple who lived down the street from me had that choice.She choose to go to the concentration camps[she was german he was jewish]They were liberated at the end of the war[another two days and they would have been dead].They moved to america became americans integrating beautifully.
Please everyone stop putting the gay issue in with the nazis.Its no where close
ltb
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 9:51amI am sick and tired of militant homosexuals shoving their lifestyle in everyone else’s face. My parents’ generation wouldn’t even talk about women being pregnant in public, because what people do in the bedroom wasn’t considered a topic for polite conversation. And you know what? I’m guessing that made for more comfortable situations than wretch inducing discussions where you have to listen to someone like Rosie O’Donnell talk about her latest girlfriend. You people need to learn to keep private matters private, because people couldn‘t care less what you do in the bedroom and if you’re so okay with it yourselves then you shouldn’t need to seek constant approval from others for your lifestyle.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 9:55amThe utter ignorance of this nation is amazing, our useful idiots are more brain damaged than the ones in Nazi Germany were, they are even willing to destroy their future, their parents futures, and even their sons and daughters futures for the same misguided reason of gay rights. This time the liberals aren’t even having to hide behind the lie of racial purity, they are doing it out in to open, openly destroying our society for misguided, bogus gay rights. This revolution is going to make the murder of a few million Jews seem like child’s play, when the suffering is over, we will be lucky if man kind survives. I just hope the useful idiots realize the destruction they have caused before they fall victim to it.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 10:47amVOTEBUSH…all men are created equal doesn’t imply that homosexuals can marry each other. It means no American is seen as less than another. We are however a nation of laws. And under those laws the Federal Government -as it stands today- defines marriage as only being between a man and woman for it’s purposes. This is why referendums can be held at the State Level to determine if the people of any given state want to recognize or want to not recognize homosexual marriage. Is this too difficult for you champ? Unfortunately as we’ve seen in states like California…the militant homosexual lobby happily litigates to overturn the will of the people whereever and whenever it feels slighted. You should be castigating them for overturning the peoples’ vote, not people who abide by the laws of the land and hold the constitution in the highest esteem.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 10:48amLOCKED…..did you really think your semantics and word mincing with the Defense of Marriage Act deserved anything more than calling your bluff? Idiot.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 10:57amNo DAS KAPITAL QUOTIN’, CHRISTIAN FEARIN’, LEFTY…your myopic hatred of Christians compelled you to offer an inaccurate assertion and when you were reminded that atheists and agnostics also abide by the same marriage laws- per recognition by the Federal Government- you fumbled a peurile…”you‘re all christians here so I’m addressing just you”, hail mary (can I use “hail mary” without insulting your fragile atheist sensibilities, pal?). Bottom line…you’re nowhere near as clever as you believe yourself to be and you demonstrate that over and over and over champ.
Report Post »Mtroom
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 11:01amAs said on here before…She never answered the girls question…This lady, that everyone loves so much, is scary to me…She talks “nice” but if you really look at it..She spins, side steps, and will not answer questions..Just like someone others I know…And that is what makes her scary to me..Is this another that will find the popular topics, and make a stand on those to get the majority vote? I don’t trust these type of politicians..This seemed like she was avoiding at all costs, and talked down to this 13 yr old girl like she shouldn’t ask questions…This was our youth becoming active in politics…You wonder why many students are out in the streets living in tents?…There ya go right there…When these children step forth to ask questions, no one answers them…Everyone talks down to them, until some loon says…” I have the answers your looking for.”..People on this site b’tch all the time about the “dumb kids” ..and OWS…Well, maybe someone should have answered their questions a long time ago..Than, just maybe, we wouldn’t have so many “mindless, useful idiots.”
Report Post »This matter of marriage is a tough one….The way I see it, I don’t care one way or another who anyone else marries…The issues I have is the family structure..I have some real close friends that are gay and know that they would make great parents to a child…This should be the talking point..If gay marriage will keep a good family structure. This “me” mentality is killing their own moveme
Viet Vet
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 11:02am@VoteBushIn12
What Equal Rights Amendment?????????
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 11:12am@Avenger
“did you really think your semantics and word mincing with the Defense of Marriage Act deserved anything more than calling your bluff? Idiot.”
I’m actually pretty confused as to what you mean, because you dance, dance, dance, and never actually discuss a topic. I keep hoping in vain that one day you will, but sometimes being an optimist means dealing with disappointment.
There are two main parts to DOMA: a state cannot be forced to recognize marriage from another state, and the federal government will not give recognition for benefits. DOMA does NOT forbid same-sex marriage. Are you disagreeing?
Report Post »CATPBJ
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 11:26am@Survivorseed – 100% correct! Marcus Bachmann is a homosexual and it shows, especially by his trying to “pray the gay away” which hasn‘t worked for him yet and won’t work because it is impossible to simply pray away who he is.
@Anonymous T. Irrelevant – WRONG! Neither Bill or Hillary Clinton is gay. If either was I’m sure they would be proud of who they were and not live a lie like Marcus Bachmann is. Also, neither Barack nor Michelle Obama is gay either – I bet you get your “facts” from fox ‘news’.
@Blackhawk1 – WRONG! Cher is a self-absorbed twit and I believe her even less than I believe what Michelle Bachmann has to say! Marcus Bachmann is gay because that is the way God made him!
Report Post »Ded-Bred
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 11:55amJust what I needed this morning- a cup of gourmet coffee & the opinion of a teenage girl who’s apparently more disturbed than most other teens, which is hard to do… Besides, why would Michelle even waste time speaking @ some high school? How many students will be 18 in time to vote? And how many of them will vote Republican after having been force fed left wing Marxist agendas from kindergarten through………face it- we may as well laugh now, because LowBomBah nomomma, Mo’Drama, Ramadan-Bombah…(.oops, sorry for the meltdown)…Republicans don’t have anyone to put in the ring with him. And I’m beginning to believe that those same bottom feeders who voted for him the 1st time will show up by the (A.M.E. church)busload and throw palm fronds @ before him singing,”Hosanna!!!”
Report Post »jblaze
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 12:46pmBible Quotin‘ Science Fearin’ Conservative American
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:39pm
So, a law that says that a man can only marry a woman and a woman can only marry a man is NOT a special right afforded to Christian believers and forced on everyone else?
When and Who created marriage……God did and it was between a MAN and a WOMEN. Plan and simple! It is MAN that is doing HIS/HER level best to destroy what God created! If you hate God so much, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO BE INVOLVED WITH SOMETHING HE CREATED?????? ANSWER THAT! STAY OUT OF MARRIAGE IF YOU HATE GOD!
Report Post »TheMediaWolf
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 12:49pmNext thing you know child molesters will want molesting kids to be legal or marrying kids to be legal. Why not? It is their sex life? they can’t control who they are?… NO. Marriage is from the bible, consist of a man marrying a woman. Even if it were legal in the land God would not consider it a marriage. God made marriage. God still loves everybody, just doesn’t condone it.
Report Post »stifroc
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 12:54pm@Bible Quotin‘ Science Fearin’ Conservative American
Christians are no more hypocritical than any other group out there. Every liberal I know, or listen to is a hypocrite. Just two of MANY examples here. 1.) Liberals cry foul at religions (Christians more than any other) “forcing” their beliefs on other. Yet liberals force their ideals, values and beliefs on everyone else. 2.) Liberals proclaim themselves to be more compassionate, caring and intelligent than others, yet liberals are the ones that rape and riot in the streets and resort to base behavior and name calling in debate or policy and in general behavior.
So you, or really anyone is not above reproach when it comes to hypocrisy. However I understand that you have to resort to baseless attacks that because your world view is devoid of fact or quantitative results outside of anything more substantial than good intentions.
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 1:10pm@AvengerK
You clearly stopped reading after my third line.
Let me try again with Formal Logic Proof…
1. Man can marry Woman (Law according to Bachmann)
2. Woman can be married by Man (Transitive, 1)
3. Man and Woman are Equal (Equal Rights Amendment)
4. Woman can marry Woman (Substitution, 3,1)
5. Man can be married by Man (Substitution, 3,2)
—————————————
QED
@Viet Vet
The one that hasn’t passed yet. I wasn’t anticipating any of you would actually do you research, good job. Every now and then I am reminded that there are intelligent people on this forum – but I beg of you, don’t ruin the experience for the other idiots around you.
Like telling a kid “Santa doesn’t exist”, sometimes it’s better to let the ignorants remain ignorant in order to test their foundations.
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 1:22pm@STIFROC
“yet liberals are the ones that rape and riot in the streets and resort to base behavior and name calling in debate or policy and in general behavior.”
Did you really just write that?
For making the claim that Liberals are responsible for rape, riot, and are sole participants in “name calling” I have deemed you unworthy to use the internet.
Please log off and think about what you’ve done, you are clearly not mature enough to engage in virtual conversation with other people.
Report Post »Mtroom
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 1:29pm@Votebushin12…I like that one…Good read..I guess that’s a thumbs up..Don‘t think I’ve ever used that term before..
Report Post »Go Glenn
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 1:38pmDefinition of Marriage from Merriam Webster : a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the OPPOSITE SEX as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
Bachmann is absolutely correct.
Solution: create a new word for marriage between 2 men or 2 women………..FAIRYAGE
There you go……..problem solved.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 1:41pmLocked…I find it amusing that you have to attack everyone on this thread if they don’t happen to agree with you…My original statement was correct..it is the law of the land…for now anyway…I didn’t say it was a federal law…I live in Oregon..there is no homosexual marriage here…I swear anybody that tries to stick with the moral laws of God is called a hater….meanwhile anything goes on the other side…not acceptable!
Report Post »old white guy
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 2:08pmdoes anyone ever get sick of the constant whining of the perverts and devients?? homosexuality was wrong thousands of years ago, it is still wrong. fortunately in our society we do not kill those who practice homosexuality. count yourselves lucky to be a perv in the country you live and SHUT YOUR FACE.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 2:29pm@Godlovinmom
“My original statement was correct..it is the law of the land…for now anyway…I didn’t say it was a federal law…I live in Oregon..there is no homosexual marriage here…”
Still incorrect. If you wish to argue the “land” in question is a state-by-state basis, then Bachmann was wrong: this meeting happened in Iowa, where same-sex marriage is legal. I actually said that as tongue-in-cheek: while DOMA ensures the federal government doesn’t acknowledge same-sex marriage, it does not ban them either. There is no “law of the land” for the entire US banning it, and if you’re arguing it by states, then Bachmann was wrong when she said it in Iowa.
Sorry you feel I need to attack people, as I’m not trying to… but I am pointing out where Bachmann was wrong.
Remember: just because someone says “Bachmann has her facts wrong,” doesn’t mean SSM:
A) Is federally recognized (it’s not)
B) Legally recognized by the SCotUS (marriage is a right, but SSM hasn’t been declared as such)
C) cannot be blocked through amendments (either to state or US Constitutions).
But none of those answer the question of what Bachmann would do for the LGBT community or GSAs. Like some posters here, she danced around the topic.
Report Post »A Forgiven 1
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 2:44pmon Judeo-Christian values. A nation ruled by Law (The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, other supporting laws and founders who knew what it was like to be ruled by the whim of a king or despot or a collective)- a Republic! America has never legally known an earthly king. Christians know a heavenly King. That’s who America is before God. If you don’t like it, you can leave. Satan is hard at work to change it. But, God wins in the end folks. End of story!
Report Post »What these young people should be asking, is who taught you this perversion and why? What do they have to gain. America has been blessed because we were founded as a Christian nation on Judeo-Christian values. When we turn from God, we are no longer blessed or in His favor.
Why aren‘t these young people up in the teachers of perversion’s faces asking them why they have sought to ruin something so beautiful and precious as marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage is not the relationship between a person and a pet or two plutonic friends or a mother or dad and their child or sexual partners, but something that has been stolen from these children and will never be realized in their lifetimes as it was intended by God if they have participated in aberrant sex.
Satan wants a one world government and he wants us to be ruled by his whim and fancy and that of his minions. What is “correct” today with him is sin tomorrow. You are never sure of where you stand or what is right. I can take your TV
godlovinmom
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 2:52pmLocked…you are mincing words…and furthermore…why does anyone have to do anything for the gay community…what makes them so special…because of their type of sex practices…so with this reasoning…why don’t we have pedophile marriages…as long as the kids parents say its okay..why not…how about you get to marry two people…if everyone is consenting…why not…and if Michelle was so wrong to say its not the law of the land in “Iowa” then the homosexual girl was wrong for even asking it…since the law already “favors” her.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 3:29pm@Godlovinmom
“Locked…you are mincing words…”
Avengerk says the same thing, and yet neither of you have explained what this means. I don’t expect anything from him (he argues with me all the time in comments), but I’d appreciate your take on it.
“and furthermore…why does anyone have to do anything for the gay community”
Who says anything special has to be done for them? Keep in mind, the -only- group that is protected by a federal law when it comes to marriage is heterosexual couples: since DOMA was passed, they are the only group recognized. Before then, assuming states allowed SSM, any legal marriage would have been given benefits. DOMA, however, protected “traditional” marriage. Repeal or removal of it wouldn’t be removing benefits from anyone who currently has them.
“so with this reasoning…why don’t we have pedophile marriages…as long as the kids parents say its okay..why not…how about you get to marry two people…if everyone is consenting…why not…”
Report Post »This is a weak argument and separate from gay marriage, but there are a few reasons.
1. Children cannot legally consent.
2. States set the age of majority, not the federal government (outside some specific privileges, of which marriage is not one). A “child” in one state may be an “adult” in another. For example, in many state you can marry at 16, and some as low as 14 with parental approval.
3. Paedophilia, by definition, involves an adult sexually abusing a minor. A minor can
Locked
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 3:36pm@godlovinmom (continued)
“and if Michelle was so wrong to say its not the law of the land in “Iowa” then the homosexual girl was wrong for even asking it…since the law already “favors” her.”
A few issues here:
1. She wasn’t “so wrong” in the way you’re using it (presumably, in a moral sense). She was factually incorrect. The law of the land relates to the federal government’s recognition of marriage (they only recognize heterosexual marriage). But they do NOT ban same sex marriage.
2. How do you know this girl is a homosexual? Seems like quite the assumption.
3. I already said the girl asked the wrong questions: she should have been specific, focusing on DOMA, a veto of a potential amendment banning SSM, or following through with the current administration’s vow to not defend DOMA if it comes to court. A president can influence several things and champion causes. However, the girl is 16… the woman in question is running for the office of President of the United States of America. And she still refused to answer the questions she was asked.
4. What “law” favors “her” (presumably you meant same sex marriages) that a president can influence? The only federal protection when it comes to marriage is offering recognition only to heterosexual couples through DOMA.
I hope I didn’t “mince words” this time, as I quoted you in full.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 3:40pm@Godlovinmom
Argh, deception typing spaces! Curse you, The Blaze! The end of the first response should have been:
3. Paedophilia, by definition, involves an adult sexually abusing a minor. A minor cannot consent to either marriage or sex. A marriage of this type would be impossible.
Report Post »4. And while not mentioned, betrothals between children are legal in the US. Arranged marriages are as well, but of course the children in question cannot be legally wed until they meet the requirements set by the states.
aliengenius
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 4:49pmThe proper response to this question would be:
The government has no business being involved in ANYONE’S marriage, gay or straight. Why should anyone have to purchase a license to marry someone? Why should there be special tax provisions for married people?
Marriage should be between you, your significant other and your church if you have one. From a legal standpoint a couple (or group for that matter) can formulate a legal contract setting forth conditions and expectations for the contract. This would be in effect a pre-nup agreement. Don’t want one? Fine, you don’t have to have one. Choose private arbitration if things go badly we don’t want you clogging up our courts with your drama.
OMG! you say, then gay people and polygamists would be legal! No, they just wouldn’t be illegal. What business is it of yours to dictate contractual obligations of unrelated parties? Remember, freedom isn’t about YOU, it’s about EVERYBODY. When we start siding with one side or another then we all sacrifice our freedom. If they can do it to THEM they can do it to YOU somewhere down the road. If you don’t like the lifestyle of others, exercise your first amendment right and go hold a protest or join a club. Legalization/decriminalization doesn’t always equate approval.
We’d all be alot better off if people would just MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS. Worry about you and your loved ones, be charitable if you are moved to be and exercise your rights if you are moved to do so.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 4:57pm@Aliengenius
“The government has no business being involved in ANYONE’S marriage, gay or straight. Why should anyone have to purchase a license to marry someone? Why should there be special tax provisions for married people?”
You lived up to your posting name. Well, the genius part. No idea if you’re an extraterrestrial. This is the libertarian answer, and one I very much support. However, I believe marriage is so ingrained in society and government action by now that it will never be fully extricated and left to the people to decide. We can hope though!
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 6:15pmI believe this is where we differ…man‘s law versus God’s law…is marriage an institution of God or man..I believe it originated with God…therefore we as God lovin people must say that we disagree with homosexuals marrying…they have their civil unions, why isn’t that good enough…it affords them the same rights per the government…homosexuals are doing the same thing that some say christians do…forcing their beliefs on us..and if you think for one minute that isn’t the case…lets have a look into the public schools of America…who’s agenda is there…let’s look into the public buildings and public officials of America…who’s agenda is there…what we have to decide as human beings whether we believe in man’s law or Gods…I choose God…don’t you also find it wierd when the same people who fight for the “rights” of homosexuals, also believe in evolution…being homosexual is unnatural…so that means they don’t evolve…right?..Be homosexual if you want…just quit pushing it on me…I will never believe that it is right, as GOD says.
Report Post »Blackop
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 7:23pmSee? She really is a lyin’ ass bitch
Report Post »Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 8:03pmThinking Jesus was not the son of god only makes you an atheist to people who think Jesus was the son of god.
Report Post »Susie40
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 8:07pmShe did answer the question.
Report Post »She didn’t dance around it.
She said, “If I were President, I wouldn’t give special privileges to people due to their sexual preferences”.
No, that isn’t the Presidents job. The President can’t just make anything he/she wants to be a law. Not his/her job. That is Congress’ job.
BTW it is very wrong for a President to ignore laws on the books “because I think that is not a good law”.
As she said, its all about the LAW.
PS: and no, she is not on my list of candidates for the Republican party nomination.
maryanne3935
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 8:08pmNow thats a hoot
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 8:45pm@GodLovingMom
I am very grateful of your defense of Godly values but I must say this is all a trap.
I do not believe Government should be directing marriage and deciding who is married and who is not. I believe as you, that God defines what marriage is and that it is a religious ceremony of God which adjoins man and woman into one.
If you do believe God defines marriage then what role does Government play and why do we need Government involved in it? I see it only as a revenue source. (tax).
If two Homos want to believe their tree god marries them so be it, I know it is false, you know it’s false and it is not forced in my church.
We believers, taking marriage from the house of God and giving it to Government to direct and decide over, shot ourselves in the foot for we will see ‘Churche’s’ marrying Homos and Government will be forced to recognize such activity as to not infringe upon the right to religious practice. A Church can sue Government if it does not recognize Homos marriage on the grounds of ruling in favor of one religion over another, even if you and I know Homos religion is false. It’s a trap.
Satan is very smart and deception is his game. Believers as you and I must take Government out of all marriage. There is no need for it when God is the head of marriage. Hope that makes sense. Stay safe!
Report Post »jimdyer47
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 8:57pmI respect those who object to “gay marriage” on the grounds that it is against the law; but there is, in my opinion a stronger and simpler argument to be made. IT IS A MATTER OF LANGUAGE !! For 6000 years marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman. George Orwell was right… If you want to tyrannically rule a people; change the meanings of their language. He called it “NEW – SPEAK. Current progressives are doing it to us everyday under the guise of “political correctness”. NUTS TO PROGRESSIVES !!!
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 9:25pmOkie…probably one of my biggest sins, my stubborness…thank you my friend! :)
Report Post »RON-BLAZE
Posted on December 3, 2011 at 2:16amMy opinion the problem lies in the idea for government to have any role or say in who gets “married”. I thought the idea of Marriage is between you and your spouse under the eyes of God? So the Government gets involved not only by saying we will give special tax breaks and tax benefits to married couples but also charge a nice fee for a marriage “CERTIFICATE”(at least my Twp. does). Again, I thought Marriage was a “sacred” vowel between you, your spouse and God. IS GOVERNMENT THE NEW GOD? I believe if people don’t wake up this could be how government will use this kind of false idea of equality(LGBT Groups) to take away our right to freedom of religion, because the bible says being Gay is a sin.(But who am I to judge, Thats not my job, I can just pray for them) The bible was our main source to the idea of “FREEDOM” and American Principles & values that made this country great. If Gay people want to get married…..it don’t bother me, the only entitlement to marriage “Should be” what that “sacred” bond or ceremony means to the gay couple. Like Jefferson said “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.“ THE ONLY ONE PICKING POCKETS IS THE GOVERNMENT and again they give out special tax breaks and benefits to ”married” couples. Again this is my opinion…But I think people need to look at this as Government intrusion on freedom of religion….and Government Greed.
Report Post »WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges05
Posted on December 3, 2011 at 4:41amNote to Bachmann — unadulterated TRUTH is the way to handle pervert ambushes:
Homosexual conduct is NOT a right, nor a special right.
Homosexual conduct IS A CRIME so abominable it carries the death penalty.
Those who commit such crime, and those who approve of them, do so at the peril of Justice by God if not by man.
George Mason, often called “The Father of the Bill of Rights”, stated at the Constitutional Convention:
“As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities” (as quoted in Madison, 1840, 3:1391)
“If we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity” -Daniel Webster
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on December 3, 2011 at 8:55amThose of us opposed to SSM have a tough argument to make. I‘m not sure I’ve seen any articulation compelling enough for the younger generation. Talking about laws in a republic and the fact that gay rights would be special rights based on sexual preferences (like Bachmann did) gets lost in two ways: 1. many are convinced they’re not preferences or behaviors, but innate characteristics (so we have to prove that’s false first); 2. it seems logical on its face that two people who love each other deserve the right to marry (so we have to prove that something that looks equal on its face is actually quite unequal first).
Report Post »Somehow we have to remind people that we are all humans, which gives us all certain proclivities. Although we are diverse, we all suffer temptations or impulsions to do different things that are wrong/illegal. Because I am a thief, a cheat, a liar, and an adulterer by nature doesn‘t mean it’s living a lie for me to control those urges and never commit those sins/crimes. In fact, I believe God calls me to do so, the same way He calls those with same gender attraction to keep their urges in check. Society calls me also to keep most of those in check because it recognizes that I’m damaging the rights of others when I indulge my base appetites. We have to argue better that behavior is a choice.
And you pure libertarians out there aren’t helping things when you want govt out of all marriage. Marriage is MORE than just love, just a contract, it’s the promise
ConstitutionalPatriot
Posted on December 3, 2011 at 9:17amAs well MOST of Suriviorseed‘less’s party approves inter species unions. . .Just look at Nancy and Paul Pelosi, they have many mouths around their trough. Then there is Barney ‘poke my butt’ Frank and his spider monkey’s. . . the list goes on and on.
But, what seedless misses is the word marriage comes from the original book most laws are derived from, the Holy Bible, and the word of God describes marriage as being between one man and one woman.
So seedless, go home to your pet, spouse and enjoy life for in the end you won’t have to go to the equator to feel warm.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on December 3, 2011 at 9:24am(cont.)
Report Post »It’s the promise of progeny. Govt has a legitimate stake in marriage because the children that result (do I REALLY have to qualify that the idea of marriage includes the possibility of posterity?) are not mere property that a mere contract can be competent to have legal standing over. By reducing marriage to a matter of conscience you‘re both misunderstanding its fundamental nature and furthering the SSM crowd’s message, because they too seek to reduce the meaning of marriage to something the govt should have no stake in.
Love is the sine qua non of marriage, but marriage is not fully reducible to love alone. Commitment and a sharing of property are also sine qua non of marriage, but marriage is not fully reducible to contract law. The govt has a stake in marriage because govt is the only unit of society competent to protect the rights of the new citizens which may result from the union of a man and a woman. I happen to believe marriage is a covenant with God as well, but again, this quality of marriage is necessary but not sufficient to the success of a marriage.
What the SSM crowd is trying to do is both muddle the nature of marriage, and confuse us into comparing apples to oranges. Gay marriage is NOT the same as marriage. Sexual behaviors should never constitute the basis for the granting of rights, and in the case of govt sanctioning of marriage that‘s NOT what they’re doing either.
We need to argue better.
Stuck_in_CA
Posted on December 3, 2011 at 9:24amShe handled the whole thing beautifully, and without a Teleprompter, too!
Report Post »We would do well to have her as POTUS. She speaks from the heart.
Locked
Posted on December 3, 2011 at 3:10pm@Godlovinmom
“I believe this is where we differ…man‘s law versus God’s law…is marriage an institution of God or man..”
You would be right then. We’re talking about marriage as in the institution of marriage as recognized in the US. This is not conditional upon religion. Any church can hold a wedding ceremony and call it a marriage; I’m fine with religious marriage. The issue is when one religion believes its marriage is the only right one and forces it on others. Hence why a separation of church and state is needed. But yes, I think that’s the crux of it. Christians (all and all religions) need to realize that “marriage” as codified in US law is a secular ceremony, not a religious one. As a Christian I’ve never understood how others of my faith feel they need the state to declare themselves married… and then feel the need to make the state ONLY let the “right” people get married. Let the people decide what they want.
“…they have their civil unions, why isn’t that good enough…it affords them the same rights per the government…”
Completely wrong. Civil unions are not recognized by the federal government either if they are same-sex couples.
Report Post »Tom
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:27pmTrance if that was the law of the land then there would be no people, you cant procreate in an anal cavity or with a plastic appendage. And if society was structured your warped way I’m betting things would be screwed up far worse that they are now.
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:51pmLiberals will bring their own kind to an end eventually. Either through abortion or not being able to procreate because of being gay.That is a day I anxiously await.
Report Post »Detroit paperboy
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:23pmLet have a parade !!!!!
Report Post »Jim in Houston
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:44pmIf they can’t procreate, we will one day run out of homosexuals. Notice I didn’t say Gay, since there is not a damned thing gay about being a homosexual.
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 1:11am@Jim in Houston
Homosexuality isn’t genetic… The stupidity on this forum is deafening
Report Post »PCistheDevil
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 2:37amI wish Michele would draw up Impeachment papers on Obama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yK1c5F1gy4
Report Post »aliengenius
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 5:17pmYou guys really make non-liberals look bad. There are always about the same number of gay people around at any given time. In of itself it is not an inherited trait though certain factors involved may be inherited in some cases.
A true freedom loving constitutional conservative would never want the government dictating something so personal as marriage. But hey, I guess its ok so long as you are in agreement with it right? Do you not see how this kind of crap has led to the disgusting mess our country in mired in now? Would you be ok with the government telling you whom you could marry? How many kids you can have? Where you could live? What you can eat? What doctor you go to? How you will retire? Where you can travel to? Don’t you see that by attempting to legislate your morality and your preferences you are empowering the evil beast of government to enter you lives in very negative ways.
If the price of returning to the constitution and true freedom is letting two men get married have butt sex in the privacy of their own home I’m all for it. At least then I wouldn’t have to endure the anal rape our government visits upon us now. How bout you guys?
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:27pmFor all of you who were bashing Obama for calling it the English embassy instead of the British embassy, you should now all be saying the same things about Bachmann who claims that she would close the American Embassy in Iran. There is one problem with her statement, the U.S. doesn’t have an embassy in Iran.
Accordingly, you should now all be calling her a ****** too.
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:37pmOne difference. There was an American Embassy in Iran until the Iran Hostage crisis (Thanks Jimmy Carter) Here is what our idiot from the WH said ‘All of us are deeply disturbed by the, err, crashing of, err, the English Embassy, err, the embassy of the United Kingdom.’
Report Post »By calling it the ‘embassy of the United Kingdom’, he got it wrong a second time.
There has never been an English Embassy, although there have been English ambassadors centuries ago in 1479.
Obama Snake Oil Co
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:39pmIs Obama in Asia or England now…you know he could have gone to one of the 57 states to raise money. Would you get the man a Blackberry Teleprompter? I am guessing you never said anything stupid in public? Well, you posted one…
Report Post »JRook
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:41pm@Blackhawk1 Yea that’s pretty recent, I can understand why she would have been confused. And Carter closed it because of the hostage crisis and similarly hostile situation that has led to other embassy closings. But let’s not digress based on a misdirection. The point is that the young girl did not seem to be fighting with M. Bachmann but rather having a rather civil interaction as difficult that is for the majority of people here to fathom. And yes M. Bachmann came across both factual and semi-intelligent in contrast to her typical presentation.
Report Post »dnewton
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:43pmAmerica operates an embassy through a third party. It might be the Swiss. I thought she meant that they would take that back channel mechanism down too. I don‘t know why they just don’t use the services of CNN.
Report Post »Lather
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:45pm@Blackhawk1 Please Don’t rewrite History to Blame Carter for the US CLEARLY Placing the Shaw in power decade earlier, allowing the Shaw to Kill every Moderate until the ONLY people left were the Extremist. The seed were Planted Years before Carter and anyone with a clue and Memory KNOW IT.
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:56pm@BLACKHAWK1
Thank you for proving my point. You are defending her factually inaccurate statements while lambasting Obama for a gaffe. We closed our embassy in Iran in 1980 and since then the Swiss have served U.S. citizens in Iran. Thus, what she said was flat out wrong. And no, 1980 was not so recent that she shouldn’t have known.
You people claim that she is so smart, yet she makes factually inaccurate statements every ******* day. If you attack Obama for every little gaffe he makes, then you can’t ignore here statements. Some of her statements are merely gaffes as well, but there are others where she just makes **** up and others where she is just wrong.
And yes, Obama has been wrong on things and makes gaffes as well. So does Biden.
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:59pmJROOK
“And Carter closed it because of the hostage crisis and similarly hostile situation that has led to other embassy closings”.
Yeah Carter closed it after there was nothing left of it.
Lather
It would seem you are trying to rewrite history.
The immediate cause of the Embassy takeover was the anger many Iranians felt over the U.S. President Jimmy Carter allowing the deposed former ruler of Iran, Shah Reza Pahlavi, to enter the U.S. for medical treatment. In Iran, this was believed to be an opening move leading up an American-backed return to power by the Shah.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:07pmI haven’t heard her say that – link to your reference please…and that link needs to be her speaking not a link to a blg post of someone saying she said it…..
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:07pmGodfather
“she makes factually inaccurate statements every ******* day. If you attack Obama for every little gaffe he makes,”
So when Bachman does it she is factually inaccurate but when Obama does it, it’s just a gaffe. Without a teleprompter Obama can’t put a logical sentence together. Even with a teleprompter he spews LIES almost daily. I will take Bachmans factual inaccuracies any day over Obama’s flat out lies.
Report Post »JakeEllis
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:12pmJrook. You are an infant with communist liberal mental retardation. Carter never closed the embassy in Iran. Reagan was elected, the hostages were immediately released because the muslims knew there was a storm a brewing, and I am of the belief, without google searching, that the embassy has never been closed, just abandoned. Bachmann is a sitting Congresswoman. Let any of the communist hijinks that occur at ALL Republican town halls try to be attempted at ANY communist democrat town hall. This was a set up by the hermaphrodite mother sitting between those two ignorant children.
Report Post »RightUnite
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:13pmWay to stay on topic tool.
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:28pm@BLACKHAWK1
Apparently you didn’t read my whole post. I said right at the bottom that Obama has been wrong on certain issues. So no, I was not implying that his are only gaffes.
My point is simply that Bachmann makes things up daily, and makes statements that have no evidentiary support every day, and yet you have no problem with that but seem to think Obama, or any other liberal, is an idiot if he does the same.
Report Post »Itchee Dryback
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 6:37pmLather
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:45pm
@Blackhawk1 Please Don’t rewrite History to Blame Carter for the US CLEARLY Placing the Shaw in power decade earlier, allowing the Shaw to Kill every Moderate until the ONLY people left were the Extremist. The seed were Planted Years before Carter and anyone with a clue and Memory KNOW IT.
_________________________________________________
Delusional rewrite of history.
Report Post »aliengenius
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 4:58pm@Lather
Though there were contributing factors to the Iranian problem, none of them makes up for the utter ineptitude of Jimmy Carter. He was an awful President and an awful leader. I hear he’s good at building houses. I’m glad he found his true calling in the wake of such magnificent failure.
Report Post »Marine25
Posted on December 3, 2011 at 9:25pmThey won’t. She’s white.
Report Post »capecodsully
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:26pmWell if homosexuals can’t demand that everyone accept their lifestyle, how are they going to shut up Christians and make the Bible hate speech? How are they supposed to indoctrinate other people’s children in the public schools? If Bachman had her way, everyone would have the same right to their own personal beliefs. Can’t have that now can we.
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:50pm“Well if homosexuals can’t demand that everyone accept their lifestyle, how are they going to shut up Christians and make the Bible hate speech?”
Report Post »As there should be no law forcing you to accept homosexuals, there should be no law limiting that (homosexual) person’s individual freedom. The fact that someone’s individual free will can be put up for a vote, is wrong and should be pointed out as such by whomever truly believes in the right of the individual to live their live without government mandate.
lildrummerboy
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 6:33pm@this_individual…what?!? Bachman clearly stated the law of the land at the current moment. If you or any other person gay or not doesn’t like the situation they are in, then they can excercise their right by petition to have it changed, but that would require a governmental process to change the current law, but since you don’t like governmental intervening then I guess you will stay in your present situation. Sorry you can’t have it both ways. Enjoy your freedoms, at least people can “choose” to be gay and live in this country. You will die in other countries. First be greatful for the freedoms you currently have before complaining you don’t have enough….
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 11:04pmLITTLE DRUMMER- “Bachman clearly stated the law of the land at the current moment.”
I understand that, and it’s still wrong.
” If you or any other person gay or not doesn’t like the situation they are in”
You don’t have to be gay to want “their” individual freedoms protected.
You don’t have to be Christian (as I am not) to insure there is no mandate abolishing that religion.
,” then they can excercise their right by petition to have it changed, but that would require a governmental process to change the current law,”
Not only change the law, but adhering to the constitution in that government should not impose itself on the rights of the individual.
” but since you don’t like governmental intervening then I guess you will stay in your present situation.”That wouldn’t be government intervening, that would be me putting that machine back in it’s place.
” Enjoy your freedoms, at least people can “choose” to be gay and live in this country.”
Report Post »I will always enjoy my freedoms, but when others are faced with socialist laws which hinder their choices in life, I have to speak. Look past the gay issue for a second (if possible) and think of how this evil can be used against you. Voting is like handing a child a loaded gun (not that I think I’m above anyone else, but you see how easily folks can be swayed by demonization of others)
This_Individual
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 11:27pmLIL (cont)
Report Post »“You will die in other countries.” I would absolutely die someday, but not before I do my best in teaching my children that collectivism is what our Christian friends might call the devil’s manifesto. And that everyone has an inalianable right to their own happiness without infringing on the right of others to exist in the same way.
” First be greatful for the freedoms you currently have before complaining you don’t have enough….”
The freedoms that I have are not for others to give or take away in the first place. Complaining that I don’t have enough? Look at what you typed there, and really think about it. Do you know how many regulations I have to swim through before I can open a business? Are you aware that companies are being squeezed out of my state because of government intervention? I won‘t attempt getting into the long list of individual freedoms which you and I don’t have. It’ll make your heads spin clean off. I tuly hope you wake up someday. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM
dissentnow
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:26pmI’m a libertarian and an atheist so i have no moral hang ups when it comes to what other people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. That being said, i have never understood why schools allow groups to organize based on the private sexual preferences of its members. Last i checked, school was for learning and not for forming sexual cliques.
Report Post »Besides, why should the president do anything for the gay community…..or the straight community……or the black community…….or the white community….?
Marriage should decided on the state level; not the federal.
Git-R-Done
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:22pmWhat about states that get into a fight over whether a same sex marriage is forced to be recognized in a state that doesn’t want it?
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:41pmGit, things of this nature should not be up to a vote. It is an issue of individual freedom for these folks to get “married”. The “people” shouldn’t be allowed to vote on an individuals freedom. Believe me, if this sort of thing becomes the norm, other individual rights will be put to a vote. Voting should be confined to public issues.
Report Post »the wireworker
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 6:21pmwhat i want to know is why is a 16 YEAR OLD advocating for homosexual marriage. shouldn’t she be advocating the right to know how to put a condom on little johnny, maybe the right to have maps in school to show the closest planned parenthood, or how to get to miss smith’s house for an afternoon photo shoot… there are so many other things she should be advocating for…..sarcasm
Report Post »lildrummerboy
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 7:21pm@this_individual….not all “freedoms” are good. I’m “free” to kill someone, but there is a law that prohibits it. I accept that for the good of those around me the law is better than excersizing my freedomn and I obey it. People “vote” to have laws put in place, if you want things to change it has to become law and to do that it requires a vote….I truly understand the fear of losing freedom, but you could live in a country with no freedoms. We all are afraid of the current POTUS taking more of our freedoms because to him the constitution is constraining, but it’s their to protect the people. People is a collection of individuals. If individual freedom jeporadizes the people it will be abolished. However that decision comes from the people not the government. Currently the government is making choices without the people. That should concern you more than people voting on gay marriage.
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 10:38pmLILDRUMMER- “not all “freedoms” are good. I’m “free” to kill someone, but there is a law that prohibits it.” Yes all freedoms are good as long as they don’t infringe on the freedoms of others. That would include murder.
“I accept that for the good of those around me the law is better than excersizing my freedomn and I obey it. People “vote” to have laws put in place, if you want things to change it has to become law and to do that it requires a vote”
Report Post »A vote should never be taken that would infringe on another’s free will. I am fully aware that there are laws in place that intrude on our life liberty and persuit of happiness.
“I truly understand the fear of losing freedom, but you could live in a country with no freedoms.” I am a first generation American whose parents came from such a country, and a can’t believe how complacent many of my fellow Americans are.
” We all are afraid of the current POTUS taking more of our freedoms because to him the constitution is constraining, but it’s their to protect the people.”
The current POTUS? The slow decent into the hell that is socialism has been in the works for a VERY long time. Regardless of party affiliation.
This_Individual
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 10:49pmDRUMMER (cont)
“People is a collection of individuals. If individual freedom jeporadizes the people it will be abolished.”
Report Post »Individual freedom cannot jeapordize the collective, as one who is truly not of a collective mind would never pass a law limiting the individual freedoms of another. Again, individual freedoms which do not intrude on another person’s freedom.
” However that decision comes from the people not the government.”
“People” nor government should have a decision on anything regarding the personal freedom of others. Once that mindset is comfortable enough for the chicks to leave their nests, you can takle both the government and a collective mindset at the same time.
” Currently the government is making choices without the people. That should concern you more than people voting on gay marriage.” They are both of a socialist mentality, and I’m quite capable of multitasking.
Walkabout
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 9:29amThis_Individual
Your whole post screams of in your face gayness. Why didn’t you just post a picture of a $$?
Gayness is a dangerous meme. I know you will keep pushing it, so the only resolution is divorce. We make two countries at some time in the future. You can make new people via decantation like they did in Brave New World. You can convince some lesbian to take one for the team. Or lastly you can use massive medical intervention dope a sperm cell so it becomes an egg & implant it in your gut. Whatever you do won’t be natural. And we won’t let you live like parasites off of society. Doe heteros really make homos. I don’t think so. Not genetically at least. I’ll go with Dawkins meme ideal. Once society cleanses itself of it, there will be no more gays. Except in the country filled with people that we divorced ourselves from. For however long that lasts. No gay bashing. No persecution. Just divorce. We’ll be free of you & you can do whatever you want.
When I brought up the ideal of divorce of the two groups in a gay blog, some lesbian school teacher was appalled. She thought it needn’t come to that. Well it does. Because we are not going to celebrate, affirm or promote a gay lifestyle. So many gays won;t accept anything less than that. It won’t happen. Divorce.
Report Post »Love_John_Galt
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 11:00amGet the fedreal government out of ALL social issues!
Ron Paul 2012 is the only way to make that happen…
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 11:05amWALKABOUT- Having a bit of internet courage? You are probably one of those little p****** that read like they could handle themselves, but ultimately are nothing but hen pecked, frustrated, little dicked turds. First of all you effin pos, I’m not gay. Simply because I would defend EVERYONES individual freedom doesn’t mean that I have anything to do with them other than their being fellow Americans who deserve their individual freedom.
Report Post »If you were in Germany during the 2nd WW, you would’ve been one of the trash either turning people into the gestapo, not speaking up against the regime, or messing your pants while little children bang on your door seeking shelter. I and everyone who knows me, would tell you that I am nowhere near the p***** you seem to be. My post has nothing to do with these people being gay. It has everything to to with the rights of the individual, which even your sorry excuse for an existance deserves.
This_Individual
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 12:04pmGALT- “Get the fedreal government out of ALL social issues!
Ron Paul 2012 is the only way to make that happen”
I agree. If another statist gets the Republican nomination, it will be simply be a choice between two socialists. And if that happens, it would be a shame for all of those people who fled socialist countries (as my parents did) only to be back in the fire again. It will also be a shame for those who have no idea how to survive in such a horrible existance.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 1:35pmThis_Individual
I don’t care who you think you are.
Gayness is a public issue. We pay for gayness when we spend more per capita on gayness than on other diseases. Some gay activists have been chagrined about the amount of money spent to solve the problems of gayness (AIDS). Further gayness is a public issue in education. I don’t want my children taught that gayness is great during Harvey Milk recognition day.
Gayness has changed people’s perception of benefits. It is so bad that people want work to pay for service rendered at the time. Benefits will be one casualty of the gay war that has been forced upon us. We’ll pay for our own & you can go to some corner & degenerate.
I’ve participated in two wars chickenhawk. Go preen somewhere else about your temerous tough guy image.
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 2:40pmWALKABOUT- SO what? I’ve served as well. USMC 2512 Field Wireman. Just because you served in two wars doesn‘t make you any tougher than anyone who hasn’t served. Everything you just stated is because of governemt intruding in the private lives of individuals. If it wasn’t there in the first place, private charity would be picking up the tab for those who are infected with aids and other “gay issues”. As far as education, when you send your kids to public school (which is funded by the state), do you expect anything else from the state? Your argument rests on your belief that homosexuality is wrong (which is your prerogative), but defending the implimentation of laws limiting a persons free will is socialist.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 8:13pmThis_Individual
“If it wasn’t there in the first place, private charity would be picking up the tab for those who are infected with aids and other “gay issues”.
Private charity should be picking up the tab for these individuals. But there is a difference between being forced by the government & choosing to give to a charity. If course many of the charities are & would be church or synagogue related. And many of the hospitals are church & synagogue related or were.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 8:17pmLiberals are destroying education too. That is why you see growth of private schools, church schools & home schooling. Keep up this gay thing & it will totally destroy public education.
I have nor problem with state & local government not paying for education. Just give me that portion of taxes that were levied for the school district & I will send my kids to better schools than they go to now (hint no public schools).
Report Post »normbal
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:26pmForget that it’s “the law of the land,” people, it’s a NATURAL law. Marriage IS between a man and a women. Period. There’s no fudge factor here (no pun intended). The sun rises in the east. Period. It doesn’t rise in the south by southwest because we redefine what the cardinal points of the compass are and neither can we redefine what marriage is or what it means. Its celebrates the fusing of a man and a woman for the purpose of creating diversity through DNA intermingling, through BREEDING. Homosexuals can’t do that. Period. No amount of whining from your obviously egocentric oppositional defiant gender identity disordered self is going to change that. So sue God.
Report Post »Atrain1966
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:31pmNicely put !!!
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:40pm“Forget that it’s “the law of the land,” people, it’s a NATURAL law.”
I find it hard to take anyone who says “forget the law of the land” seriously when they’re talking explicitly about what the laws of the land are.
Report Post »Lather
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:48pmThe is Gayness in Nature! PERIOD! It is Natural that there is diversity in ALL Animals. You are a Bigot.
Report Post »goatrope67
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:05pmFirst off, marriage is not defined as a relationship built on the foundation of having children. It’s a legal formation that develops kinship. While you could argue that you have to have children to have kin, while the counter argument would be that even couples that are unable to conceive are still married. Those that cannot conceive either go through their marriage child-less or they adopt. The same thing can occur for a same-sex union. So, this argument holds no water. And secondly, even if I believed in a god I would be unable to sue him as he has not made his physical presence known. It’s virtually impossible to sue someone who you NEVER see. What this whole thing comes down to though is that she’s falling back on the “law of the land” argument to avoid actually addressing the girl’s question. Bachmann is against homosexuals marrying. Period. She’s stated that fact numerous times. Yet she somehow had a problem saying the same thing to this impressionable teenager that wanted a straight answer from someone that is running for public office.
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:11pmThe animals that practice gayness find themselves extinct. So I guess it is not natural law.
Report Post »Mike N
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:20pmI know many gay people, and have nothing against them. I don’t cringe or shrink away from them, and I get along with them just as well as with straight people.
Still, I don’t believe the claims that homosexuality is purely genetic, and that gays don’t truly have a choice. If that were true, the process of natural selection would have eliminated homosexual genes from the face of the Earth eons ago. I think that is one of the chief reasons that gays are such a small minority.
I believe homosexuality probably starts with some genetic tendencies, but goes further with environmental encouragement, without which there would likely not be the current proliferation of the gay lifestyle. I think the post 1950′s age of free sex has made more acceptable that which we consider deviant sexual behavior, and emboldened those who wish to increase the membership of the gay community, providing greater selection for their pleasure.
If homosexuality truly is a product of environmental influence, and not purely genetic, society should stop embracing the gay lifestyle, let it survive as best it can in the closet, and if it doesn’t survive, it wasn’t mean to be.
Report Post »MarketsClear
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:59pmYour usage of the term “natural law” is pretty far off. Natural law and natural rights theory refer to how man acts in the state of nature and what actions he may perform without injuring another man’s ability to act freely. A term of natural law is the freedom to enter into contract. Civil marriage is a private contract between individuals. To restrict the freedom to enter into contract based on gender is a violation of natural law.
Report Post »the wireworker
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 6:35pm@ GOATROPE#
Report Post »why is an IMPRESSIONABLE 16 year old teenager advocating for gay rights period?
lildrummerboy
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 7:09pm@Lather…really?…really? That’s all you have? Animals aren’t gay…they can’t be…they’re instinct to procreate WITH A FEMALE. THIS is natural. You also can’t classify humans with animals since an animal has no conscience to even comprehend the idea or emotions associated with the sexual drive towards the same sex/gender.
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 8:30pm@ Lather ..
You want to go down that rabbit hole.?
Survival of the fittest is natures law too.
And that would bring me to my next question.
What about extinction .?
What if there where only three people left in the world.
Two people are married to each other (gay) .
The third person is of the opposite sex.
Would one of the two (gays) void-out the sanctity of marriage ,
to keep the species alive..?
Mankind is the custodians of the Earth .
We would do all we could to stop any species from becoming extinct .
So the answer would obviously be yes.
Bringing equality by marriage absolutely preposterous .
This argument of equality between same sex marriage and
opposite sex marriage show’s how envious , deceitful , hypocrites and
who the true bigots really are…!
This is a prime example of …“ The Emperors new clothes”.
At the end of the story everyone knows the Kings naked .
But the homosexuals pushing this agenda ,
wants everyone to keep pretending .
Only instead of clothes, its a certain reproductive organ ,
or the lack thereof .
Now who’s living the lie..?
Report Post »tmplarnite
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:25pmGays are brain dead…let’s look at a gay couple….one “plays” the female and one “plays” the male in gender “roles”…WHAT THE HELL IS THAT???? That is really a heterosexual game…they just have bent idea a sexual relationship….what’s the next gay marriage want: gay and goat, gay and snake, gay and horse, gay and tiger, gay and watermelon…silly idiots!
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:29pmI know, silly idiots, next they’ll be wanting to marry chickens and rabbits. But, wait, marriage requires the consent of two adults, and an animal can’t consent.
Swing and a miss. Try again next time.
Report Post »tmplarnite
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:43pmSwing and a miss??? Another idiot….the key word here is adult…that means a grown up… which you swung and missed at…crawl back under the rainbow coalition rock you slithered out from under!
Report Post »Rayblue
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:47pmA man and “Annoying Orange”.
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:00pm@TMPLARNITE
What are you talking about? Adult, as in the legal definition of an adult; someone that can enter into a contract. An animal cannot enter into a contract and marriage is a contract.
Thus, swing and a miss again.
Report Post »goatrope67
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:08pm@TMPLARNITE….Godfather.1 was agreeing with you. And you bashed him. You owe that man an apology. Of which I’m sure I will get flamed for suggesting.
Report Post »Krutch
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:23pmThey’re trying to get “rights” for animals already.
Report Post »KeithOlbermann
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 6:08pmI was with you right up to the watermelon comment. Don’t come between me and my watermelon!
Report Post »ThoreauHD
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:23pmDepartment of Education, your donuts are ready.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 7:08amdonuts have a hole………can I marry it?
Report Post »OneofMany
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:23pmGo Bachman!! The 1% is the LGBT activists and Saul Alinsky communists! The 99% is red blooded American Christians.
Report Post »Fillup
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:23pmHere’s my answer to the student. “We don’t have same sex marriages because then smart, intelligent little girls like you wouldn’t be born and able to come here to ask dumb questions.”
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:46pmApparently you’ve never heard of in vitro fertilization.
Report Post »RightUnite
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:17pmYeah, well take invtro out of the equation, and you got nothing!
Report Post »BikerMickAG
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 6:32pmAs I’ve always understood it, marriage is a religious construct that was purposefully put forth and adhered to by the overwhelming majority of established faiths throughout the world, primarily because the family was the easiest, safest, most logical and common sense way of naturally preserving and perpetuating the human species. There HAVE BEEN times throughout the history of humankind where a small segment of one culture or another set themselves apart from other world societies as an independent homosexual society, with the decided emphasis on “HAVE BEEN”. All of those societies died off because homosexuality is not a naturally perpetuating/preserving lifestyle. In today’s world, with in-vitro & the dawn of cloning & other methods of artificial insemination, the statist, liberal, progressive dream of an anything-goes utopia is ever closer…all by forcing what they want on the majority.
Report Post »spicypillow
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 8:11pmExcept that marriage is not a requirement for procreation. In the US and Britain, 40% or more children are born out-of-wedlock, so that’s not really a good reason to keep marriage between a man and a woman.
Report Post »hucksqr
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:22pmI won’t make the case for same sex marriage. But I will make this case. Marriage is NOT for the government to regulate. Nowhere in the Constitution I’ve read over and over again does it give the federal government the power.
Report Post »Either you are for the Constitution %100, or you are completely against it. Just as the federal government does not have the power to regulate our healthcare Constitutionally, or what food I can eat, or what medicines I can take, or whether or not I want to homeschool my children, it does not have the power to regulate marriage by laws or executive order. It’s only supposed to defend our freedom, and facilitate trade. I really wish the so called “conservative” neocons out there would stop trying to rationalize their own brand of tyranny.
Mr. Oshawott
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 7:58pm@HuckSQR
Report Post »Amen to that! While I do belive in the traditional definition of marriage, the Constitution in no way mentions that the government’s allowed to establish the definition of marriage of any sort. Sadly, the neo-conservatives on this website seem to not understand that, which is truly disheartening.
DesertPaine
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 8:44amHuck.
Do you travel licensed? Do you participate in income tax? Do you pay property tax? Do you accept licensure in your job or profession? Do you abide by your city‘s ordinances and state’s statutes as though they were law? Do you use an SSN? If you employ people, do you require them to “participate” in withholding schemas? If you are in employ, do you “participate” in withholding schemas?
Being ‘for’ the Constitution 100% or nothing is not something ‘they’ need to do. If you believe the Constitution is an all or nothing proposition, living that 100% is a whole lot different than talking about it.
‘They’ are not
Report Post »Sibyl
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:22pmMichele Bachmann just got an endorsement from Arizona Congressman Trent.
Report Post »She was endorsed by Glenn Beck also.
garyM
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:50pmGlenn tooted Backman’s horn, he did not endorse her, he said he did not endorse candidates and he was not a registered republican and would not be able to vote in the GOP primary. Beck, I suspect is really endorsing Romney, the only serious electable contender as a GOP candidate that hasn’t has multiple negative stories reposted or posted about him on the Blaze! Notice the next two weeks how many negative Newt stories you will see on the Blaze since he is the front runner ahead of Romney!
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 9:01pmYou think Ron Paul’s ad was tough on Newt? WOW Wait until you see what this Iowa Christian Group produced! It’s BRUTAL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOQbZvK7KcQ
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 3, 2011 at 12:54pmNewt lies — often:
He lied the other day in a tv interview about when he was speaker he averaged a 90% conservative index rating.
When the truth is, his CI ratings for his eight terms in office has fluctuated between fairly good to mediocre to
abysmal:
96th Congress : 85 – 97th Congress: 77
Report Post »98th Congress : 74 – 99th Congress: 80
100th Congress: 80 – 101st Congress: 57
100nd Congress: 60 – 103rd Congress: 78
True American66
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:22pmMrs. Bachman is a shiny example of a True American!!!….no pretense, no pandering, no bull!
Report Post »goatrope67
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:10pmWrong….on all accounts. She’s a shiny object to look at but she has lied, obfuscated, and coasted her way to where she is. The answers she gave was nothing more than politispeak. She double talked that girl into shutting down. Nicely done.
Report Post »Ok-Sure
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 11:03amMarriage is a joke! if this comment is removed again i will make your day very very annoying mr mod. The minute we allowed the state to determine what marriage is it completely destroyed the meaning. Marriage is a commitment b/w 2 ppl who love each other and want to declare their relationship in front of God, their family, friends, and whomever they wish to share and witness the event. This whole conversation is pointless because none of you are talking about anything. What your talking about it Gov’t control over a personal relationship. This is the stupid bs that has gotten us to where we are. Everyone focuses on meaningless arguing because they were told to. Gays have been around since the beginning of humanity they are not going away get over it, gays if you are that concerned with marriage reclaim it somewhere legitemate outside of the Gov’t between your family and God. Grow up!
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:20pmWhy is Bachmann not our leading candidate? I’m still trying to figure that one out.
Remember when snot-nosed, high schoolers new there place and wouldn’t ask such intelligence-insulting questions? Man, those days are long gone.
Report Post »Navyveteran
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 7:07pmPerhaps it was her friggen vote to keep the unpatriot act that did her in. I sure know that killed her for my vote. She talks a big game about our constitutional freedoms but when rubber meets road she votes for one big thing that takes our 4th Amendment rights away. This is why I don’t travel I will not be in the porno scanners or be felt up by the TSA unless they have a signed search warrant to LEGALLY SEARCH ME! And they have to have a good reason and some proof to prove the search warrant is needed.
Report Post »LondoMollari
Posted on December 6, 2011 at 7:22pmThe problem is they don’t seem to understand that homosexuality is more than just a choice and has real consequences.
Report Post »garyM
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:19pmThe young lady I guess has gay pride which comes from the devil himself!
Report Post »goatrope67
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 5:11pmOr she has an open-mind which is to be lauded.
Report Post »TPartyXpress
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 12:49am@goatrope67 Yes, open like a sewer when she takes off the cover.
Report Post »Atrain1966
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:19pmThat’s exactly right ! You go girl !
Report Post »bikerr
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:19pmMichele has it right. She also is Presidential material.
Report Post »felix
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:18pmJANE SCHMIDT — perfectly educated by liberal, progressive, communist teachers !!
Report Post »gmoneytx
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:17pmShe handled that pretty well, I think. However someone should smack that little shiot up side the head, and her parents too.
Report Post »True American66
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:24pmI disagree…that was the perfect opportunity for Mrs. Bachman to set straight the failings of our school systems and to teach that girl an American lesson!
Report Post »Sibyl
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:29pmI would LOVE to have Michele Bachmann debate Obama. She is smart, quick, unflappable and thinks on her feet. Doesn’t need a tele-prompter to deliver.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:16pmAnd I’m not saying the teachers/professors are all garbage–but the percentage of lib educators is much higher than not.
Nicely explained, Michele!!!
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:22pmOkay, then I’ll say it: The vast majority of teachers and professors are garbage.
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:29pmAgreed. If control of the Schools is turned back over to the State and local communities you will see a bunch of liberal teachers in the unemployment line.
Report Post »Trance
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:15pmSo, if the law of the land was that a man could only marry a man, and a woman could only marry a woman, heterosexual couples would have no cause to complain since they have the same civil rights as homosexual couples.
Report Post »Atrain1966
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:21pmIf everybody was doing that then there would be no need to complain. We wouldn’t be around much longer.
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:21pmI’d say, if that were the “law”, then you’d be correct in your assumption.
What am I missing here???
Report Post »ROMANS 10-9
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:27pmOne Man + One Woman = Marriage
One Man + One Man = Sin
One Woman + One Woman = Sin
It’s your choice.
Sinning is a Choice.
Got it?
Report Post »dlmarsh
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:44pmIt also falls under Natural Law, which never changes, such as Physics, Natural Law of Economics, etc. Natural law says that only a man can get a woman pregnant. No matter how much someone may want it otherwise, a woman will never be able to get a woman pregnant, and a man will never be able to get a man pregnant. Hence the fact that the institution of marriage is about procreation and the best environment for bringing about offspring. Most people, including homosexuals, don’t know that anyone can already marry anyone else through marriage contracts. Which falls under Common Law marriage contracts. And any couple, hetero, or ****, can convey property, etc. to each other through contracts such as wills, power of attorney etc. The problem Everybody falls into is most people get Marriage Licenses which always involves 3 people getting married. The 2 flesh and blood people, and the state granting the marriage license. That is how all states can legitimately be involved in all marriage, and hence also all divorces, property settlements, child custody, etc. Because the state is an equal party to the marriage. Don’t believe me, research it for yourself, and also ask any Clerk of Court or County Recorder, they will tell you the same thing if they admit the truth. Knowledge is Power.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:49pmROMANS 10-9
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:27pm
One Man + One Woman = Marriage
One Man + One Man = Sin
One Woman + One Woman = Sin
It’s your choice.
Sinning is a Choice.
Got it?
Report Post »____________________
Agreed, its my choice, not the government’s choice to make.
jajas
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 12:53pmYou are ALL missing the point marriage is a union of faith and the government is soposed to stay out of the church. The solution is a civil contract, this is how the states actually recognize a marriage anyway.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:14pmAnd garbage teachers…..
Report Post »thegreatcarnac
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:13pmGood for Bachmann. She was apparently ambushed by a bunch of teen homosexuals. She stood her ground and told it like it is regardless of the scrambled thoughts of the gays.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 9:08pmThe only one displaying scrambled thoughts was Bachmann, when she made the birdbrained claim that the right to marry someone you can’t be attracted to is the same as the right to marry someone you can.
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 8:33amCHET… WHAT????? hahahaha
Report Post »MaxMagician
Posted on December 2, 2011 at 4:14pmSo according to Chet, Jerry Sandusky has the right to marry little boys?
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:13pmYou learn ‘em, Michele! These sponge brains need decent folk teaching them in between the lies they are fed by their garbage professors.
Report Post »broker0101
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:12pm10:1 our High School Gay-Marraige expert could not solve a basic arithmetic problem, but she can argue the hell out of same-sex marriage.
Report Post »JoeInAlbany
Posted on December 1, 2011 at 4:35pm“… but she can argue the hell out of same-sex marriage…”
Based on what I read, she couldn’t do that well either.
It’s really hard not to love Bachmann.
Wonder if Llittle Miss Gay Rights would have the guts to raise 5 kids and 23 foster kids, like the Congresswoman and her hubby did?
Oh that’s right…she have to go to a lab first to get pregnant?
It’s all just so silly, I have a hard time not laughing out loud just typing this.
Report Post »LondoMollari
Posted on December 6, 2011 at 7:24pmThat was not a good argument by the students; granted it was a short Q and A session and as some others point, maybe they should just keep their mouths SHUT, but it was a poor argument.
Report Post »