In a one-on-one exclusive sit-down interview with The Brody File, GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann says that when it comes to defining marriage between a man and a woman, “there may be a need for a federal constitutional amendment.”
The Brody File interviewed Bachmann in Waterloo, Iowa, Sunday evening before her big campaign announcement in her hometown.
Watch her answer below along with the full transcription:
David Brody: On marriage, and I know you’ve explained this, but I just want to understand. You’re saying if a state passes a law in favor of same sex marriage, like New York did, knock themselves out, they can do what they want. But you’re saying you’re for a constitutional amendment for marriage, to define marriage as one man, one woman, which, in essence, if three-fourths of the states ratify it, it becomes, somewhat of a states issue as well. Is that what you’re basically saying?
Michele Bachmann: In our form of government, the states, under the 10th amendment, have the right to pass legislation that they like. For instance, I tried to pass the constitutional amendment in Minnesota to define marriage as one man, one woman. Happily, the Minnesota legislature did that just a few months ago. Now the voters in my home state will be able to vote on marriage in 2012 on the ballot.
Other states have gone down a different path. What we do know is this. This issue will end up in the courts. As president of the United States, I will not appoint activist judges who legislate from the bench.
I will appoint constitutionalist judges who revere and uphold our constitution. I believe that this is such a fundamental issue to our nation, the strengthening of a family, and the importance of marriage between a man and a woman, that I will stand for that as president of the United States.
Brody: And if DOMA at some point, is overturned, you would spend, as President, political capital on this issue?”
Bachmann: Well, the very sad reality is that President Obama, as Commander in Chief, and as chief executive, is tasked with upholding the laws of the land, one of which is the Defense of Marriage Act. Now, we will have a conflict. New York, for example, passed same sex marriage and other states have constitutional amendments having marriage as one man, one woman.
What happens if say a same sex couple from New York moves to a state that has the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman? They may sue to have their marriage upheld in that state. That’s why we had DOMA. To allow states that don’t have same sex marriage, or vice versa, to be able to uphold the law of their state, and not be forced to recognize a marriage from another state.
Inevitably, this will come up. That’s why I believe this will go to the courts, and there may be a need for a federal constitutional amendment. And under, again, our constitution, the federal law trumps state law. That’s how it works.