Student challenges Bachmann on marriage

[meegbear]

Run time: 04:57 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RenwNhL1Te0   Posted on YouTube: December 01, 2011 By YouTube Member: cfteditor Views on YouTube: 301   Posted on DU: December 01, 2011 By DU Member: meegbear Views on DU: 2280

 
Things went down last night at the Pizza Ranch in Waverly, Iowa, at the town hall meeting Michele Bachmann held. One high school student dared to stand up for herself and challenge Bachmann's backward stance on gay marriage.

We have to give it up for this girl, who really stuck to her guns in a tough room of people who think that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Seriously, Bachmann's stance makes no sense. She claims that gay people have the same rights as everyone else because they're allowed to get married to a member of the opposite sex just like all other Americans. I can do nothing but shake my head at this. Naturally Bachmann refuses to admit that she has been completely outwitted by a kid who isn't even old enough to vote yet, but whatever. We don't keep Michelle around for her sense-making. Crazy-making? Yes.

Seriously, let's give it up for this girl who stood up for herself and all gay people at some pizza place in Iowa. It's people like her that are going to make gay marriage a reality and people like Michelle Bachmann look even stupider when Adams and Steves the nation over are getting hitched.

http://gawker.com/5864280/hero-high-school-student-fights-michele-bachmann-over-gay-marriage

[geardaddy]

1. You had me at "Pizza Ranch"

But yeah, that girl is awesome.

[Hissyspit]

2. Yes...

Bachmann really is that fucking stupid.

[mckara]

3. Amazingly, Ridiculously Stupid!

As a lawyer, she should have mentioned something about Court rulings instead of the Department of Education and Jimmy Carter. However, those factual notions would be inconsistent with the delusional narrative that goes through her "mind" and the heads of her clapping supporters.

[The Wielding Truth]

4. Hello, Half Truth Bachman.Department of Education and Welfare

was in place since 1953 then in 1979 Jimmy Carter separated out the Department of Education.

President Harding proposed a Department of Education and Welfare as early as 1923, and similar proposals were also recommended by subsequent presidents, but for various reasons was not implemented.<1>. It as only enacted as part of the Reorganization Plan Number 1 of 1953, transmitted to Congress by Dwight D. Eisenhower on March 12, 1953.http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Health,_Education,_and_Welfare

Government is not prohibiting Christian prayer in school.

Although the Constitution forbids public school officials from directing or favoring prayer, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," < 9 > and the Supreme Court has made clear that "private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." < 10 > Moreover, not all religious speech that takes place in the public schools or at school-sponsored events is governmental speech. < 11 > For example, "nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day," < 12 > and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech. Likewise, local school authorities possess substantial discretion to impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, < 13 > but they may not structure or administer such rules to discriminate against student prayer or religious speech. For instance, where schools permit student expression on the basis of genuinely neutral criteria and students retain primary control over the content of their expression, the speech of students who choose to express themselves through religious means such as prayer is not attributable to the state and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious content. < 14 > Student remarks are not attributable to the state simply because they are delivered in a public setting or to a public audience. < 15 > As the Supreme Court has explained: "The proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor is not complicated," < 16 > and the Constitution mandates neutrality rather than hostility toward privately initiated religious expression. < 17 >http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html

[vrp]

5. This woman is an idiot,

the average pay of a govt employee is no where near 120,000. She pulled that one out of her butt. Second she doesn't understand the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which says that the government (meaning tax payer funded schools) can't establish or encourage any particular religion. What is it about that that Bachmann doesn't understand. Is she really that stupid? Or, the constitution means nothing to her? This clip infuriated me. And the ignorant people clapping....and the complete disrespect for gay and lesbian people....

[RBInMaine]

6. Those who clapped are neanderthals, and Bachman got her law degree at a correspondence school.

[lumpy]

10. Ar any rate lawyers don't have all the answers, just like preachers

judges, politicians or you and I. I understand that right wingers want the government to quit governing, but that is what our elected officials are there for. Personally I believe that a government united by the people is more important than dividing the country into states of individual sects.

[ellisonz]

7. Those are some brave girls!

:yourock:

[Javaman]

8. When bachman stated that gays could marry but only to people of the opposite sex...

they woman should have said, "oh, you mean like your husband?"

:rofl:

[Dumpster Macaine]

9. Where Do These People Come From?

When Ms. Bachmann brushed the lesbian girls and gay marriage off with the argument they, like all American's, "have to follow the law of the land", someone should have mentioned just because it's a law doesn't make it right. Laws in the U.S. are constantly challenged in the courts. Would she have told African-American's they couldn't vote or enjoy other rights in the 60's because "it's the law of the land"? The argument is either ignorant, amoral, or cowardly.