Amash warns GOPers on gay marriage; don't do anything stupid

[James Madison]

People who agree with Bachmann: are all non-Christian marriages invalid?

Theologically, yes. As would any Christian marriage that ends in divorce.

 

[McBell]

As long as the state recognizes marriages (it shouldn't, I know and agree), should they be treated that way?

 

[James Madison]

The state can recognize whatever it wants. I wouldn't be caught dead with a government permission slip for what are God-given rights.

 

[McBell]

Right, great. Michele Bachmann does care what the state recognizes and isn't just talking about theology. She is applying her own beliefs to the law in a totally different way than I think pretty much everyone here is. She is saying the state should recognize marriage, and it should only recognize her religion's form of it. You might agree with her statement when you take it completely out of its context, but in the context of her political history and the meeting that was taking place, that's pretty clearly what the implication is.

 

[James Madison]

Okay...?

I don't think you're going to find anyone on these forums that seriously advocates the government only recognizing Christian marriage.

 

[McBell]

Not even Bachmann would say that, probably. She's being inconsistent, was my point there. Anyone who agrees with her from a legislative perspective (and I'm sure there's at least one person here who does) for the same reasons she's stated, but doesn't agree with that, is also being inconsistent. Whether or not anyone here agrees with her from a theological perspective isn't relevant here, because she wasn't just talking about theology.

 

[McBell]

(Also, am I being rude? I feel like I being kind of rude, and I don't mean to be. I'm sorry.)

 

[Occam's Banana]

My bias is not hidden, I'm a Christian, and I believe God does indeed define marriage as being between a man and a woman, regardless of what the State says.

Does that mean gay marriages should be "Illegal" or that the state should be involved in marriage? Of course not.

Bachmann may have been connotating that, which is why I said I agree with what she said but disagree with the connotation of what she said.

Although I disagree with the "God defines marriage" bit, I have no problem with your belief to the contrary - or any other part of what you have said.

Unfortunately, though, Michelle Bachmann does.

Isn't that the same thing Bachmann said?

If we restrict ourselves solely to the particular words "Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted," and completely ignore the remainder of what she said (not to mention what she has said about the issue at other places and times), then I suppose I would have to answer, "It does not contradict or conflict with what Bachmann said." (But it certainly isn't the "same thing" as what she said.)

But I ought to have noted that I was reacting to the whole of Bachmann's statement (which I had encountered before reading the OP) - not just the portion of it quoted in the OP. I apologize for failing to have made that clear, as it was more than a little relevant to my point.

FTA GOP leadership on DOMA: It's up to the states (emphases mine): http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...decision-republican-response-93423_Page2.html

Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted. For thousands of years of recorded human history, no society has defended the legal standard of marriage as anything other than between man and woman. Only since 2000 have we seen a redefinition of this foundational unit of society in various nations. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of [politicians] through DOMA. What the Court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States.

NOTE: Bachmann said "the people's representatives" in place of "politicians" in the above.