Chris Wallace is also confused. A transcript:
CW: Here's what you said in the New Hampshire Debate, let's put it up.She then says that the issue will end up in the courts but she doesn't want judges who'll legislate from the bench.
MB [at the debate]:I do support a Constitutional Amendment on...between a man and a woman but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.
CW: That's why I'm confused. If you support state rights, why do you also support a constitutional amendment that would prevent any state from recognizing same sex marriage?
MB: That's entirely consistent. The States have, under the 10th Amendment, the right to pass any law they like. Also federal officials, at the federal level, have the right to also put forth a constitutional amendment.
Wallace tries again at about 2:30 and finally gets somewhere (I think):
CW: Do you want, say, it's a state issue and the states should be able to decide or would you like to see a constitutional amendment so that it's banned everywhere?And she answers:
MB: It is, it is...both. It's important for your viewers to know that Federal law will trump state law.And then after a lot of nothing from Bachmann, Wallace almost nails the jello to the wall at about 3:44:
CW: So briefly, you would support a constitutional amendment that would overturn the New York state law.As Jonathan Capehart points out:
MB: Yes, I would. I would. That is not inconsistent because the states have the right under the 10th Amendment to do what they'd like to do but the federal government also has the right to pass a federal constitutional amendment.
So, Bachmann is fine with what New York did. That’s what states do, thanks to the 10th Amendment. They’re allowed to determine their own laws without interference from Washington. But in the next breath, Bachmann is also in favor of the federal government trumping a state law legalizing same-sex marriage by defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman through a constitutional amendment.And you thought her John Wayne Gacy stuff was funny.
That didn’t make sense when Bachmann first made this argument at the New Hampshire debate two weeks ago. And it made no sense yesterday. You can be for a state’s right to determine the definition of marriage. You can be for an amendment banning same-sex marriage by etching discrimination into this nation’s founding document. But you can’t be both.