Making No Sense...

...but playing to her base.

Michelle Bachman Simultaneously Oversteps a Constitution and Tramples State's Rights

I've expounded in the past on my views of government's role with regard to a social convention and religious ceremony. "Marriage" is a traditional ceremony to announce a family union essentially for purposes of procreation and stability for children. It has been the purview of ministers, rabbis and religious functionaries and is accompanied by rite and ritual. I've got no problem with it at all. I am married and was married in such a ceremony. I have not experienced the joys of procreation, so I guess the ceremony has proven not essential to the stability of what has now become a 38 year relationship.

Government intervenes with such bureaucratic additions as licensing and recording of the rite. In case you aren't religious, they offer a secular option of justice of the peace or court officer of similar powers who will say some words to prove you've done it. Then government goes on to institute an entire body of law with regard to benefits, inheritance, property rights and exchanges of information. That is where the conflict comes in. Contract law or religious convention? Marriage or sharing of rights through civil union?

Ms Bachman, however, seems to ignore the basic purpose of a governmental constitution with her proposal to define "marriage" through an amendment. Here are the three things a constitution is supposed to do:

1. Define organization of government (terms, numbers, branches, etc.)
2. Define operation of government (majorities, vetoes, checks/balances, etc.)
3. Define the limited powers of the government.

You don't use Constitutional amendments to define terms of society nor to provide basic legislation. Ten amendments define our rights, three deal with eliminating the injustice of slavery, three establish suffrage for previously denied groups, several deal with executive selection, terms and conditions of succession. Broader reaches, such as prohibition, failed. 

Then we have this clambake:

Rep. Michele Bachmann on Sunday said that as president she would offer a federal constitutional amendment to list marriage as solely between a man and a woman. 

However, the Minnesota congresswoman said it's also up to the states to decide whether they permit same-sex marriage...

"The states have the right to pass the laws they want to," Bachmann told "Fox News Sunday," adding that such an issue should really be on the ballot so that voters can decide whether gay marriage should be the law of the land.
"Every time it's going on the ballot, the people have decided to keep the traditional definition," she said. "After all, the family is the fundamental unit of government."

If the states have a right to decide, then you don't enact a Constitutional amendment denying that right. You can't have it both ways.

When it comes to establishing rights or denial of rights for a minority class then you don't subject it to a majority vote. Our Constitution (back to step one, Michelle) provides safeguards against such tyranny of a majority over any minority whether ethnic, religious, gender or other.

And, a family is a fundamental unit of society, not government. The distinction is critical if we are ever to have an understanding of roles and responsibilities.

Of course, maybe Ms Bachman is telling us something about a job for a nanny-state?