My conversation with Michele Bachmann, Part 1

I was able to arrange an interview with Senator Michele Bachmann for today. We met at a regular old restaurant in the Twin Cities, and simply sat at a corner table to have a chat for almost 2 hours. I have to admit, even though I am a Republican and one of her supporters, she was nothing like I imagined. I’ve met her before at my Republican Senate District Convention. I’ve heard her on the radio and seen her on TV, but she came across as a regular person who means what she says and says what she means.

The conversation actually started out with her asking me a few questions. She wanted to know about me and why I started blogging. I think she was trying to weaken me up with flattery. Nonetheless, we spent a short time talking about me.

This was barely an interview by media standards (I was nice ). It was also the first interview I have ever done. I really would call it more of a friendly chat than anything else. I didn’t record the conversation. I just took notes. We of course spent some time on the marriage amendment, but we also changed into some topics like taxation, and transit, as well as her run for the Congressional seat in the 6th District.

The following will bounce between standard Q & A format and conversational dialogue. Any personnal commentary by me, not conversed with the Senator, will be in small type. I did provide links to some of the examples or topics covered for reference.

Begin:
Triple_a: Everyday, people read about you in the newspapers, and hear you on the radio, What’s it like to be in the spotlight?

Bachmann: I don’t consider myself in the spotlight.

I was expecting some grand “canned” speech about how she is doing it for the good of the people, and she’s fighting the good fight, etc. You know the kind of stuff you usually hear from politicians. I was impressed.

Triple_a: Why does Minnesota need a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman?

Senator Bachman told me of the multiple judicial assaults that traditional marriage has taken around the US and Canada over the last few years.

She told me in 2000, the voters of California approved Proposition 22 overwhelmingly, but it was later repealed not by the people of California, but by judges. (link

California Proposition 22, known also as Prop 22, was a proposition proposed and passed in 2000 that barred California’s recognition of same-sex marriage. The proposition amended California’s marriage law, adding section 308.5 of the Family Code stating Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. The proposition did not bar same-sex marriage, which was already illegal in the state, but it made it so that if another state allowed same-sex marriages, California would not recognize the union and the spouses would not be eligible for the rights and privileges associated with marriage. However, this is at apparent odds with Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution which the Supreme Court determined to force states to recognize interracial marriages, even when state legislatures passed laws to the prohibit their recognition.

The proposition received considerable controversy, but was eventually passed. Prop 22 received the support of 61.4% (4,618,673) of the voters while 38.6% (2,909,370) voted against the proposition.[1]

On February 19, 2004, the city of San Francisco filed a lawsuit against the state challenging the law. This lawsuit came out at the same time that San Francisco city officials issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

What is interesting about California and its Propositions is that they are a hybrid of statues and constitutional amendments as she put it. The propositions are more powerful than statutes, and the voters get to approve them. So it is a very democratic way of legislating things. This one passed with 61.4% approval, but the courts overturned the will of the people, and the Proposition is no more in California.

There have been similar court rulings in Vermont and Massachusetts on the subject, and in both cases, courts decided what marriage was. The courts in these cases, she thought, saw themselves as “super legislators”. She said that the courts don’t see themselves tied to the separation of powers that the other branches of government do. The true will of the people is represented by legislatures not courts. That is where there is a direct connection with how people feel. This was a very meaningful part for me, she believes like I do, that the legislature is the branch that most closely represents the actual people. The elected people have to face their decisions every election, and can be held accountable for those decisions. But the courts, she says, “Don’t respect the limit of power placed on them.”

Triple_a: Does current Minnesota law provide the protection for traditional marriage that so many in this state want?

In Minnesota we have a DOMA Statute 517.03 Prohibited marriages Our DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) statute in Minnesota says that Minnesota will not recognize out of state same sex marriages, but in the case identified above, that is up to interpretation by courts. Our law should protect traditional marriage in Minnesota, but it is not for sure.

Triple_a: Does current law provide any description of civil unions, mandate recognition or protection for same sex couples, or provide that the State recognize relationships outside that of Traditional Marriage?

Bachman: No!

The Senator then asked if I wanted to know about Civil Unions. She pointed out that there is no legal difference between them and a marriage. She used the recent marriage of Prince Charles and Camilla in England as an example. They were married under a civil union. But we all considered it a marriage. Those types of arrangements happen currently in Minnesota. The State doesn’t care if there is cake and white dresses, it recognizes a civil union the same way as it does a traditional church wedding. She believes that some people are trying to use the idea of same sex civil unions as a “negotiable middle ground” between traditional marriage and same sex marriage. To change the definition of marriage to her means a change in the status of marriage. She feels we’d be transforming the institution of marriage, one that goes back some 5000 years.

She pointed out that it was just 2 years ago that Canada’s courts struck down its own DOMA type law. Canada had a law protecting traditional marriage, but the courts said that same sex marriages must be allowed. So, the law put in place by the parliament of Canada was overruled by a court.

Here are some very interesting facts about Canada that the Senator pointed out. Did you know that only about 1 to 2% of Canadians are gay? And only 2% of that 2% actually want to get married or have gotten married, a minority of a minority as she put it. That means that only 0.04% of the people in Canada can benefit from the law the courts made allowing same sex marriages. The other 99.96% are out of luck. Their entire country was changed for such a few people. She also pointed out a new effort to strike the words “mother” “father” “motherhood” and “fatherhood” from their laws. They are trying to make it so that there is no distinction whatsoever between the parents’ roles. Meaning that everyone can do them, and open the doors for transforming their society’s strong history of mothers and fathers into the new “legal parent.”

Another little bit of information that the Senator pointed out was that in Mass this last week, 2 convicted felons in prison applied for a marriage.

I asked her how the amendment differs from current law and she replied instantly, “Doesn’t.” I followed up asking whether it was more powerful or had more clout, and if it covers more than the current law we have. I mentioned that some people think the amendment would take away benefits or rights currently given by some private institutions. She said that the State could not take away those things. I mentioned how the University of Minnesota currently provides some same sex benefits, and she enlightened me on this little point.

The State of Minnesota can only provide money to the U of M, it can’t tell it what it has to spend it on. The only authority that the State has over the U is the appointment of regents. THAT’S IT! It is completely autonomous of the rules put in place for state workers and benefits. They could not order the U to fire some one, and they couldn’t tell the U to stop providing benefits if the amendment passes. This would also be the case for any private company or group. They could or could not treat same sex partners as they see fit.

This amendment is about marriage. The money that the U gets from the State taxpayers is under the sole discretion of the U, not one bit of input from the legislature has to be listened to.
That is disturbing, and a whole other topic for another day.

Stay tuned more will follow over the next few days.

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 16th, 2005 at 7:37 pm and is filed under Minnesota, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.