Michele Bachmann Contains Multitudes

Conservatives may not like to hear it, but the truth is that they tend to invoke "states rights" in the same way they invoke "judicial activism" -- an objection to a specific policy outcome masked as an abstract principle. Why weren't they crusading for the 10th Amendment when George W. Bush was president? Because when the federal government was run by Republicans, they liked the things the federal government did. Now that the federal government is run by Democrats, they want to dress up their objections to its policies in a suit made of the Constitution, but it's really about the policies. But if you insist that it's really not about the policies but about the principle, you can easily get into trouble, as Michele Bachmann did yesterday on Fox News Sunday when talking about New York passing marriage equality:

WALLACE: But you would agree if it's passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor, then that's a state's position.

BACHMANN: It's a state law. And the 10th Amendment reserves for the states that right.

WALLACE: All right. I want to follow up on that, because I'm confused by your position on this. Here's what you said in the New Hampshire debate. Let's put it on.

(VIDEO CLIP)BACHMANN: I do support a constitutional amendment on marriage between a man and a woman, but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.

WALLACE: That's why I'm confused. If you support state rights, why you also support a constitutional amendment which would prevent any state from recognizing same-sex marriage?

BACHMANN: Well, because that's entirely consistent, that 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. One thing that we do know on marriage, this issue will ultimately end up in the courts, in the Supreme Court. I do not believe the judges should be legislating from the bench. As president of the United States, I would not appoint judges who are activists --

It goes on like this with Bachmann bobbing and weaving, until finally Wallace asks, "Do you want to say it's a state issue and that states should be able to decide? Or would like to see a constitutional amendment so that it's banned everywhere?," to which Bachmann replies, "It is both. It is a state issue and it's a federal issue."Here's the thing: We all have multiple values, and sometimes, these values conflict. It's inevitable. So when that happens, we have to weigh the competing values and determine which has greater weight. Bachmann believes in states' rights, but she also believes that no gay people should be allowed to marry, anywhere. Her actual priority isn't too hard to discern: in this case, her opposition to gay marriage is more important to her than her support for states' prerogative to make their own marriage laws. And that's fine. In fact, you could easily find people who generally support states being able to make their own marriage laws, but who come to the opposite conclusion as Bachmann (that there ought to be a constitutional amendment or Supreme Court ruling forcing states to allow anyone to marry), in the belief that in this case the value of equality trumps the value of states' rights. The problem is that Bachmann is trying to pretend there's no contradiction between her two values and she's serving both equally. Perhaps she believes that if you ever admit that a particular value can be subordinated to another value, then you've admitted you don't really believe in the first value. Which is silly, but some politicians are convinced that they'll be punished if they ever admit that these kinds of decisions are complex and nuanced, and sometimes your best answer isn't a perfect answer. And maybe they're right.