At religious right confab, Bachmann praises anti-gay marriage amendment

What a truly disgusting woman.

Bachmann: “Minnesota finally passed the constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man, one woman…”

Why bother putting it on the ballot and having an election. Michele’s already “written” history for us. Can hardly wait for her take on the Paul Revere episode.

Look busy! Jesus is coming.

The Greeks told us millennia ago that even fools have mouths.

The sixth district must be so proud to have a god talker representing them. I wonder if she could get her exchanges with the deity in writing so we could validate the signature, better yet, then a photo ID could be issued.

Jeff Wilfahrt, Rosemount, MN

The ususal slander against a conservative woman. I advice everyone to check out the utube video that shows the Planned Parenthood employee giving advice to someone the employee thought was a pimp in control of minor girls.
The “MN Independent” article falsely characterizes the situation by adding the word “appearing”. The employee gave such advice; did not “appear” to be giving such advice.
Another obvious distoration in the article: “fake pimp.” As far as the PP employee was concerned, this was a real pimp.

I sincerely hope she runs for president. That way, she will NOT be running for congress again. Then, when she loses the election to Obama, she will be completely out of office. That would be cause for celebration.

Charles, if you wish to base your entire opinion of a great organization that provides much-needed medical services to women in need on a single, heavily-edited video “pimped” by a group whose sole objective is to destroy PP by any means, be my guest. That says a lot more about you and your narrow prejudices than it does about PP.

@Charles- Typical conservative “distoration.”

At the risk of repetition, this conservative woman believes armageddon is inevitable and a good thing yet wants to lead the free world. She denies the mountain of evidence warning of human induced climate change yet wants to abolish the EPA. She believes the world was created 6,000 years ago yet wants to abolish the Department of Education. She claims to defend freedom yet tries to impose her religion on others at every turn. She claims to defend democracy yet advocates for a religious state.

She is, in short, a Christian Jihadist. And she won’t be elected President.

Praise Jebus, God hates Babel, Amen.

There is no better endorsement against the amendment than Michelle Bachmann endorsing it.

Hopefully most people will refuse to vote on the amendment at all to show how disgusting putting discrimination into the constitution is whatever their feeling about marriage equality.

[...] Michelle Bachman continues to be a poor man’s Sarah Palin [...]

See!! We can grow peaches here in Minnesota.. Our Peaches are bigger, fruitier and NUTTIER then anything that Georgia can grow.. Take that Newt!!

On the sad side Minnesota used to be the home of Wellstone and Humphrey ..
Now it’s Bachmann and Pawlenty ..
If the down slide of civilization holds true to form we are going to be completely satisfied putting a Sock Puppet or a Box of Sh1t up for Prez…

Sorry America , Not all Minnesotans are one tranquilizer dart away from a padded cell..

I agree with Joe. Keep on doing what you’re doing.

Yeah, Michele Bachmann carries the torch – for discrimination, bigotry, and exclusion. This woman is a uniter. She unites the far-right and the ultra-far-right, the haters, and the bullies. A true representative of the lowest common denominator.

@Charles – The fact is, it was one employee and one employee does not speak for the whole company – just as Michelle Bachmann does not speak for the entire district. She speaks for herself and we will respond with our vote. If Planned Parenthood truly believed this employee’s actions were right, they would not have fired her.

Good on ya’ Minnesota. Let the voters decide. Funny how many of the same voices decrying this ammendment were ecstatic when gay-marriage appeared on the 30 state ballots. I guess after going 0-30, you all are a little uncomfortable with the democratic process.

You are incorrect, HG. Gay marriage has never appeared on a state ballot, only amendments to ban gay marriage. A vote against these amendments does not legalize gay marriage. It will still remain illegal.

Andy,

True. However, the ammendments were put on the ballot in response to gay marriage. Therefore, my comment within the context of the current political debate, is correct.

But hey, by all means put an affirmative gay marriage question on a ballot. I think we both know what that would mean.

HG,

Face it. You either misspoke or lied. I presume the same convoluted reasoning is required to rationalize your support of this ridiculous amendment. Or is reason slave to fairy tales?

Praise Jebus, God hates the enlightenment, Amen.

Carl,

Read Andy’s comment. Even he acknowledges the way role of gay marriage in the ammendments put on the ballot ( “only amendments to ban gay marriage” )

They’re not ammendments, HG. They’re amendments.

HG,

I have. And you wrote, “many of the same voices decrying this ammendment were ecstatic when gay-marriage appeared on the 30 state ballots.” So now you’re saying gay rights supporters, who decry this ridiculous amendment, were ecstatic about “amendments to ban gay marriage?” You’re twisting pretty hard to justify relaying bad information.

GP, looked it up. I think you’re right. It seems to be spelled both ways but your spelling seems more common. I’ll take note of it.
Rather, than arguing grammar, why not offer something a little more relevant?

HG, it’s not that we’re uncomfortable with the democratic process. It’s just that it’s never appropriate to put a minority’s rights up for a public vote. Otherwise, why don’t we take another minority, say the rich, and put their rights, say how much in taxes they pay, and put those up for a vote? It’ll only affect like, what, 2% of the population? Hey, what, are you uncomfortable with the democratic process? Are you afraid Minnesota won’t do the right thing? Why not? We have a budget to fix!

Joe,

Your premise is where the whole comment goes off track. Gay marriage isn’t a right.

So your premise is it’s a heterosexual privilege?

[...] and mores (like most of America’s narrative). These falsehoods are perpetuated through the Christian-right. A simple week spent reading about the history of marriage in America, however, would clear up any [...]

It’s not just my premise. It’s the historical, traditional, and religious nature of marriage.

HG,

Once again you are being deliberately obtuse. You know slavery and bans on multiracial dating and marriage have also been defended for their “historical, traditional, and religious natures.” So this is no sole basis for public policy. Luckily, Americans increasingly view same sex marriage as a civil right.

Praise Jebus, God hates change, Amen.

@ HG
How did marriage work Before Man invented Gawd?? I would be willing to say that marriage was a ‘verbal contract’.. Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Satanist can all get married and guess what?? They’re generally not married under the premise of the “Christian Gawd”.. Marriage is a contract!!. Whatever ceremonial dogma you put on it is between you an your beloved …. To have the Christian Taliban dictate who can or can’t get married is not just a threat to gays and lesbians.. It’s a threat to ALL people that disagree with YOUR world view…

HG, the purpose of our state and federal constitutions is to preserve individual rights from the power of the majority as exercised through the state. These anti-marriage equality amendments do the opposite, and are thus inherently wrong.

For whatever reason, the right to marry has been established by law. When a right is arrogated to one group and denied to another, the latter group is being denied a legal right. In some cases, the right to free exercise of religion is also denied because there are Christian denominations that are not permitted to marry individuals of the same gender, even though it is part of their faith. I doubt any of this makes a difference to you, but those are the facts.

@TSG:
While the MN constitution states that a cast ballot that does not include a “yes” vote on an amendment is counted as a “no” vote whether or not the “no” was actually marked, I strongly recommend marking that “no” instead of relying on the default.

Republicans have proven themselves a litigious lot who cannot be trusted to respect the democratic process. If they could pass the amendment by narrowing the ballot count to the ones marked “yes” or “no”, they would likely spend millions trying – probably with taxpayer dollars. They could reduce it down to a question of composition and sympathies of the state supreme court.

Also, a “no” vote would show support for equal rights, liberties, and religious freedom.

@HG: “Gay marriage isn’t a right” is only true within your belief system, which has nothing to do with our secular law or the religious rights of others.