Bachmann raises cash off Obama's call to abandon Defense Of Marriage Act

Bachmann finds another way to make a buck.
When the Obama administration announced that it would no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, Michele Bachmann didn't take to her microphone at Fox News, and she didn't rant on the House floor.

She asked supporters for $50,000 instead.

The White House decision "could be a crushing blow to the traditional marriage movement," she intoned darkly in a fundraising letter to supporters. "Support for traditional marriage is overwhelmingly strong across the country."

While that maybe true in Bachmann's world, it's pretty clear that in the rest of America, people are moving on.

gallup gay marriage border.jpg
Opposition to gay marriage is on the wane.
A Gallup tracking poll (above) shows that the percentage of Americans who oppose gay marriage has dropped from 68 percent to 53 percent since 1996, while support has climbed from 27 percent to 44 percent.

pew gay marriage border.jpg
The Pew Research Center has found a similar trend, calling it broad-based, across a variety of demographic, political and religious groups: Pluralities of white mainline Protestants and white Catholics now favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, Pew found.

Maybe more importantly, Americans indicated that, with the economy in the toilet, and unemployment high, they're just not that interested in another culture war over whether people should be able to marry whomever they love.

Never mind that. In the e-mail, Bachmann made a plea for her supporters to sign a petition, then came the call to action:

I hope you will consider making a generous donation of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more. Your contribution will enable me to spread this petition to millions of conservative activists across the country.

Read the Department of Justice and Bachmann statements after the jump.

More Michele Bachmann coverage:

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
Sort: Newest | Oldest

George W. Bush's DOJ Opted Not To Defend Federal Statute That Prohibited Federal Money For Transit Systems That Accepted Ads Advocating Legalization Of Drugs. According to Congressional Quarterly:

The Justice Department will not defend a legislative provision that withholds federal money from transit systems that accept ads advocating the relaxation of drug laws.

The language, inserted into the fiscal 2004 appropriations omnibus (PL 108-199) by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., chairman of the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee, decreed that any local transit authority that ran ads advocating the legalization of drugs would forfeit any money extended through the omnibus.


Acting Solicitor General Paul Clement told the Senate legal counsel in December that the Justice Department would not appeal Friedman's decision, which had held "under well-established Supreme Court precedent [that] the funding condition amounted to viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment," and that "the government does not have a viable argument to advance in the statute's defense." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/26/05, via Nexis]

And from 2005, you have John Roberts (not a Justice at that time, of course) doing the same thing:

Under Acting Solicitor General John Roberts, DOJ Declined To Defend Federal Statute Encouraging Minority Ownership Of Broadcast Stations. According to a post written by former Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Georgetown University professor Marty Lederman:

The Washington Post reports today that John Roberts was the point person in the Office of the Solicitor General in 1990 when that office decided not to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes that required minority preferences in broadcast licensing. (In fact, Roberts was the Acting Solicitor General for purposes of the case, because SG Starr had a conflict.) The case in question was Metro Broadcasting v. FCC, and it raised very interesting questions about the circumstances under which the Department of Justice will refrain from defending the constitutionality of federal statutes.

Other Presidents who did the same thing: H.W. Bush, Clinton, and Jefferson.

But, let's look at this 1994 DOJ memo on the legality of this practise:"First, there is significant judicial approval of this proposition. Most notable is the Court's decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President's view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." Id. at 906 (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (recognizing existence of President's authority to act contrary to a statutory command)."

DOMA was signed into law by Clinton, but was written and passed by a Republican Congress. Since, it's "obvious" that marriage is about procreation and "the little sub-humans", it would seem strange that nothing in this piece of legislation (designed to "defend" marriage) restricts it to people capable of bearing children.

Look at those trend lines on the polls. Look where public opinion was when this legislation was signed into law. Things have changed quite a bit since then in terms of public opinion, haven't they?

"The supporters of Michelle Bachman are not "haters" they are people who have retained their sanity and ability to apply logic and reason." The problem is that they willfully and continually FAIL to exercise logic and reason. Much like Chas, they give their fellow conservatives a free pass to bellow any kind of falsehood, while holding contrary views to some ultra-strict standard of evidence that they themselves could never possibly meet. When challenged, they scream "liberal!", as if that negates logic and reason.And then they claim they have "integrity".


Retro Housewife writes:"Marriage is not about love you turkeys it is about creating a stable social unit for procreation and increasing the little sub-humans chances for survival."

And that is why fertility tests are required to get a marriage licence, right? Because marriage is about procreation. That is why an 80-year -old couple can't legally get married - because they can't have children. Obviously, this explains why, if a woman's husband dies, she must give up her children. Because it's no longer a "stable social social unit for procreation". Yup, there are no single parent families because that would be against the law.

BTW, Obama hasn't "overthrown" DOMA. He just won't enforce it. You know, the same way that Bush stopped enforcing dozens of laws through his signing statements.

Chas the Right
Chas the Right

Rather than being vague as you were, please name the dozens of laws Bush did not enforce?


Let's start with Bush's orders to the DOJ not to prosecute FBI agents guilty of illegal searches, or maybe the refusal to prosecute FBI agents who blatantly abused National Security Letters.

Also, the Supreme Court never ruled DOMA was constitutional. It only refused to hear a case challenging it. Refusal to hear a case is not a ruling. Odd that you didn't challenge Kirk on that, seeing how you are all about the evidence, Chas. Yup, nobody (except conservatives) can slip one by old Chas, because he's master of the facts.

Take a look at an attorney's take on this:"It’s important, first of all, to emphasize what Obama is not doing — namely, claiming to be above the law. He is not claiming that DOMA doesn’t apply, or that the federal courts cannot adjudicate the constitutionality of the act. He is not, in the manner of Jefferson or Jackson, saying that he would ignore a court ruling upholding DOMA. (The Reagan and Bush administrations — as was their right — repeatedly argued that Roe v. Wade should be overruled. The Supreme Court, as you may remember, declined.) He’s merely unwilling to argue on behalf of the law’s constitutionality. There’s nothing about this that is in any way inconsistent with our constitutional framework or the rule of law. The judiciary is not the exclusive interpreter of the Constitution."

Now, Chas, point me to the law that says someone who is infertile cannot marry. Your failure to question Retro's assertion means that you must agree, because you are all about the facts.

BTW, this a blog. It's not a doctoral dissertation.

The Retro Housewife
The Retro Housewife

A society that gives same sex couples the same rights as biologically-capable-of-reproducing couples is a society on its way out. Marriage is not about love you turkeys it is about creating a stable social unit for procreation and increasing the little sub-humans chances for survival. Two people of the same sex can not produce offspring - not without a third party's assistance and subsequent abdication of their own rights. A glaring deficiency of the same sex couple's side of the equation which would force any reasonable person to conclude: Same Sex Couple < Opposite Sex Couple. Note the absence of the "=". What is not equal in reality should not be presumed equal under the law. The supporters of Michelle Bachman are not "haters" they are people who have retained their sanity and ability to apply logic and reason.

Michelle Bachmann
Michelle Bachmann

Hey dummy. My supporters hate gay people. Do you know how to even read you lying troll? OBAMA DECLARED WAR ON MARRIAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you even read my letter stupid? Do you love those you go to war with idiot? No. This liberal is not allowed to lie about my supporters. True conservatives hate gay people!!!!!!!! Did you see how us true conservatives made sure that GOPride would never be allowed to attend CPAC again? What do you think we did that out of love you dolt? Stop your liberal lies. If you don't hate gays you aren't on the same page as me scumbag.


Of course it is more accepting. As time goes by and the lie of it is normal are brainwashed on the kids, eventually this sickness will be ok. Time is the friend of the devil and his evil followers and this is true as this immorality has been slowly accepted as pushed by the liberal demons the last 50 or so years. It is also in prophecy that this evil, such as is abortion, will be accepted and what is morally ok will be looked on as wrong. But in the end, the devil and all his evil will be defeated and that is what makes all this sickness go away forever!

Kirk the Conservative Jerk
Kirk the Conservative Jerk

Hmmm... no mention that DOMA was signed into law by Bill Clinton. Now Obama has overthrown that "evil gay hating" Bill Clinton's bill by executive order?After Bill Clinton signed this into law, it was challenged in the Supreme Court by the "fruitcake collation". It was upheld and deemed to be Constitutional.So, along comes Dictator ObamaYes, we are now have dictators in the executive branch of the government. Doesn't give a f*** about the other two branches of Government and the pecking order.Well people, say goodbye to abortion. Can't wait to get a hard core conservative in the White House!!!!! Or perhaps a Muslim president. Abortion is deemed an evil act in that religion.Oh the can of worms Obama has opened; and the best part, it will all be Obama's fault. HA HA HA


you are a jerk!  What happened to the freedom of choice in your little world?


Obvious troll is obvious.


well........this is surprising.

Now Trending

Minnesota Concert Tickets

From the Vault