The PJ Tatler

Did Michele Bachmann contradict herself on gay marriage?

Is this one of those “I was for it before I voted against it” moments popular among prostiticians?

Fresh off a formidable showing in an Iowa preference poll of 2012 Republican presidential candidates, 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.

Article V of the Constitution says in part:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution…

Assuming she would find representatives to sponsor her proposal, it’s Constitutional to offer an amendment.

Amendment X in the Bill of Rights:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Unless there’s a Constitutional amendment regarding marriage, it does appear that gay marriage is within a state’s power.

Agreeing or supporting an outcome is another matter. But as Constitutional law stands right now, Bachmann is correct.