5 Of 7 Republican Candidates Support Federal Marriage Amendment

One of the questions during last night’s debate dealt with the issue of a Federal Marriage Amendment. Of the seven candidates at the debate, only Herman Cain and Ron Paul did not endorse the Amendment. Michele Bachman’s answer was, well, a little odd but you’ll have to wait till the end to hear that:

Basically, Bachmann says she supports a Federal Marriage Amendment but she wouldn’t support overturning state law. Does she not understand that a Federal Marriage Amendment would overturn state law in states where same-sex marriage is legal?

FILED UNDER: Gender Issues, Law and the Courts, Quick Takes, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. In re: Bachmann’s answer, I don’t think most people, elected official included (or perhaps especially) fully understand the concepts that they claim to hold dear (like federalism).

  2. mantis says:

    Does she not understand that a Federal Marriage Amendment would overturn state law in states where same-sex marriage is legal?

    I asked the same thing, as I ticked off Bachmann’s misunderstandings of the Constitution during the debate. My guess is no, she does not understand that.

  3. Robert in SF says:

    A few comments re: the CNN GOP debate—

    1. Were Evangelical Christians insulted that Cain thought that only Muslims could be more loyal to God than the the USA?

    ‎2. If Bachman (or any of them) is really pro-life, from conception to natural death, then would she support prosecution of a woman who travels by plane for over 8 hours while in premature labor with a special needs baby, for reckless endangerment? A smoking pregnant woman, for assault?

    3. Why is it that they support State’s Right for Immigration enforcement, but not for marriage recognition?

  4. An Interested Party says:

    3. Why is it that they support State’s Right for Immigration enforcement, but not for marriage recognition?

    Oh come now, don’t you get it? We can’t have any Mexicans coming here and we can’t allow the gays to marry..it really is quite consistent…

  5. Michael says:

    ‎2. If Bachman (or any of them) is really pro-life, from conception to natural death, then would she support prosecution of a woman who travels by plane for over 8 hours while in premature labor with a special needs baby, for reckless endangerment? A smoking pregnant woman, for assault?

    I wonder if it means she’ll oppose capital punishment, since it’s not “natural” death.

  6. Why is it that they support State’s Right for Immigration enforcement, but not for marriage recognition?

    An interesting observation, and it gets to the heart of my original comment on this thread.

    Ultimately I think that most people have policy preference, not hardcore adherence to abstract principles like federalism. As such, they adapt the principle to policy, rather than the other way around.

  7. Does she not understand that a Federal Marriage Amendment would overturn state law in states where same-sex marriage is legal?

    Obviously, Bachmann only meant she supports the laws of the “real” states.