Bachmann cosponsors bill to condemn Obama for DOMA decision

How does this legislation create jobs or forward the cause of freedom from a tyrannical government run amok? And how much of the taxpayers time/money was wasted in it’s purely symbolic and ineffectual drafting? Just another feel good bill for the American Taliban.

Praise Jebus, God hates committed, loving couples, Amen.

Not unlike the Democraps Senate Bill to over-turn DOMA?

The Repubs House Bill condemning Obama’s inaction on DOMA should focus more on Obama’s willful misrepresentation of DOMA in Federal court. Obama never supported DOMA as he went to great lengths to undermine the law under false pretense by refusing to address all the points used to uphold DOMA in previous court rulings.

This rebuke will serve notice that the people will not stand on the side lines as corrupt elected representatives place the demands of the few over the needs of the many.

DOMA remains law unti either Congressional Repeal, the SC, or an Executive Order says otherwise.

It’s that DOMA is no longer be defended in Federal Court.

Thank you very much, Minnesotans, for Michelle Bachmann.

It’s quite sad to see the legacy of anti-civil rights is still around today, occurring on both sides of the party. It’s a shame and it will make America look silly, regressive and outdated when history judges this era.

@ Randy,

No, in the name of Jebus, I rebuke YOU sir!

Praise Jebus, God hates fundamentalist code words, Amen.

What other country on the face of this planet spends 365 days of the year campaigning? No wonder nothing gets done and you’re going down the tubes.

Get on with doing things -this is so painful to watch.

And stop spanking your president in public. You do know that your neighbor countries can see you, don’t you?

Ms. Bachmann seems to be under the false impression that if a majority of people vote for a law, that it automatically makes the law rational, non-discriminatory and constitutional. Hardly. There is NO rational basis for DOMA.

Decades ago, 31 states had bans on interracial marriage. I have no doubt that Michele would have been the first one to applaud those states for protecting traditional marriage. Bigotry is bigotry… only the target has changed. Unfortunately, people like Michele haven’t.

Jobs, Michelle, jobs.
That is what is needed not more government control of peoples lives.
Although one really expect more from Bachmann now,can they?

Although one really expect more from Bachmann now,can they?
OOPS
It should say one CANNOT really expect more from Bachmann.

@Randy:

You refer to “the demands of the few over the needs of the many”.
In what way is it a ‘need’ of yours that I would not be allowed to marry my partner?

A condemnation from Rep.. Bachmann? Now you know what’s better than a Nobel Prize.

Randy King wrote:

“This rebuke will serve notice that the people will not stand on the side lines as corrupt elected representatives place the demands of the few over the needs of the many.”

By “many” you must be referring to non-homosexual people. If so, it’s not the least bit apparent what “needs” you’re alluding to. Would you care to try again with an actual well formed argument?

The Fundamentalists are the ones that should be considered the few. It is NOT representation of the average American.

@marie- Well put.

Praise Jebus, God hates hope, Amen.

Carl–lol

Rep. Michele Bachmann is uninformed about both DOMA and the American Constitution — on 4 points.

Firstly, she believes — mistakenly — that she can impose her ancient religious tests for sanctity, holiness, and saintliness upon everyone else. She can not. America was founded on both freedom of religion, and on freedom from religion, and what she wants to do is unconstitutional. Bachmann is not allowed to impose her beliefs upon other sects any more than other sects are allowed to impose their religious beliefs upon her. To impose her religion upon others, she would first need to move to a theocratic nation where her religion is mandated by federal law, and where those outside of her religion are criminals. That happens in theocracies like Iran, not democracies like America.

Secondly, Bachmann also believes — again mistakenly — that DOMA can survive constitutional challenges so long as a majority of Congress simply wants to keep an unconstitutional law. That’s untrue. When striking down the laws that forbade inter-racial marriage in 31 states in 1967 and that invalidated same-sex marriage in about 33 states in 2010, it didn’t matter how many politicians favored the laws; all that mattered was that the courts found those laws to be unconstitutional.

Thirdly, Bachmann also believes — again mistakenly — that President Obama decided to stop defending DOMA. That is untrue. Obama did not order the DoJ to stop defending DOMA; Obama and DoJ mutually agreed to comply with the courts’ long-standing criteria for how the constitutionality of a law is defended. In the case of DOMA, because of recent cases and latest science, such defenses can no longer be made.

Fourth, Bachmann also believes — again mistakenly — that she can simply demand that DoJ defend DOMA’s constitutionality, even though long-standing court procedures don’t allow it. She can not.

Finally, Rep. Bachmann could have avoided all four of her mistakes by reading the DoJ’s explanation in “Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act” (Department of Justice Public Affairs Office, 23 February 2011).