A Quote by Michele Bachmann

I do support a constitutional amendment on marriage between a man and a woman, but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law. — © Michele Bachmann
I do support a constitutional amendment on marriage between a man and a woman, but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.
I support and have always supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. As President, I will fight for passage of this amendment. My personal belief is that marriage is between one man and one woman, for life.
I strongly believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. I'm troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage. I've watched carefully what's happened in San Francisco where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise. I have consistently stated that I will support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. And obviously these events are influencing my decision.
The time has come in our society when I see great wisdom and purpose in a United States Constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is nothing in that proposed amendment that requires a criminal prosecution or that directs the attorneys general to go out and round people up, but it declares a principle and it also creates a defensive barrier against those who would alter that traditional definition of marriage.
There are more than 30 states, who either by statute or constitutional amendment, have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.
So far, 44 States, or 88 percent of the States, have enacted laws providing that marriage shall consist of a union between a man and a woman. Only 75 percent of the States are required to approve a constitutional amendment.
I have voted in support of efforts in the Senate to enact a Constitutional amendment that would have limited marriage to one man and one woman only.
I think it's very important that we protect marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage. And the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution.
I'm knocking our pitiful, pathetic lawmakers. And I thank God that President Bush has stated, we need a Constitutional amendment that states that marriage is between a man and a woman.
This OCCUPIED amendment, this constitutional amendment, would overturn Citizens United. It would make clear that corporations aren't people, that they - the framers of the Constitution never intended to give constitutional rights to corporations, the ones that we enjoy and cherish.
Short of the passage of a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage as between one man and one woman, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say.
I don't support gay marriage, but I also don't support a constitutional amendment banning it. However, I do support same sex unions that would give gay couples all the rights, privileges and protections of marriage.
While 45 of the 50 States have either a State constitutional amendment or a statute that preserves the current definition of marriage, left-wing activist judges and officials at the local levels have struck down State laws protecting marriage.
Today, I will vote in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment. I shall do so because like President Bush, I strongly believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Like the majority of Alaskans, I supported a constitutional amendment in 1998 defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, but my thinking has evolved as America has witnessed a clear cultural shift.
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a 'same sex' marriage license issued in another state.
I totally support civil partnerships and that same-sex relationships are recognised in law. But marriage, to me, is between a man and a woman.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!