Bachmann asked if she would be ‘submissive’ to husband as president

AMES, Iowa — Rep. Michele Bachmann dismissed a moderator’s question during Thursday night’s Iowa presidential debate asking if she would be submissive to her husband if elected president.

Boos erupted from the debate hall at Iowa State University after the Washington Examiner’s Byron York asked Bachmann about a past statement about being “submissive” to her husband, Marcus.

“Thank you for that question, Byron,” Bachmann responded. “Marcus and I will have been married for 33 years this September 10th. I’m in love with him. I’m so proud of him.”

“What submission means to us,” she continued, “if that’s what your question is, it means respect. I respect my husband.”

“And he respects me as his wife,” she said. “That’s how we operate our marriage. We respect each other. We love each other. And I’ve been so grateful that we’ve been able to build a home together. We have five wonderful children and 23 foster children. We built a business together and a life together. And I’m very proud of him.”

The “submissive” marital doctrine is drawn from a passage in the New Testament book of Colossians. (RELATED: Bachmann, Pawlenty duke it out during debate)

Also participating in the Fox News-sponsored debate were Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

  • Anonymous

    I believe the question asked of Michelle Bachmann regarding biblical submission is appropriate and I would like to see it answered…..in full. Yes, it is true that the bible teaches mutual submission – one to another but regarding husband and wife, it goes further. The wife is admonished to “obey” her husband. Often misapplied, what it boils down to, practically speaking, is if the two totally disagree on something, the husband has the responsibility of making the final decision. And God help him if it turns out he was wrong…even once…smile. For this reason, I would walk in the understanding (if she were elected and truly submitted) that her husband would be actually making a few of the decisions. Now before you tare and feather me, I don’t think this is a “deal breaker”. In fact, we would be getting a straighter deal with a women in office – because in reality, most women actually make the final decisions anyway! I mean, do you think, even for a minute that Hilary let Bill make all the decisions?

  • Anonymous

    It is clear that the questioner didn’t understand the concept of “obedience to husband.” I used to be extremely suspicious of this terminology and have finally come to realize that it is largely semantic. If you looked at 100 couples who say that they espouse this idea, you’d find 100 different ways that the couples deal with the concept. It is no different than any other 100 couples who don’t use those words. The balance of power in relationships varies according to the couple. And it is clear that Michelle Bachmann is her own person—–and in that relationship, if she is “obedient” to her husband it is also clear that she’s given free range to be herself. I am certain that there are many restrictive relationships out there where “obedience to husband” isn’t ever mentioned. This obsession on the left with marginalizing Bachmann by using this straw argument  still ends up marginalizing the woman and putting her into the “nut” category making it more difficult for all women to break the many glass ceilings left to break. Here’s an interesting take on that idea. We just need to stop stereotyping women if we are ever to get ahead. Here’s an interesting set of ideas to eliminate this problem. It’s a bit of a read, but it’s worth it:

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6GD67DRRFQNHCDITG7S6I7ZUWI priceless22

    She answered it well. People always try to “Gotcha” by leaving out the rest of the passage.

  • Major Skidmark

    MB is MY frontrunner!

  • ms kayla

    Why are questions like this not asked of Democratic female candidates (for *any* political office)?

  • TexasTea

    Bachman was asked about her direct quote when she said, “the Lord says to be submissive…wives be submissive to your husbands”  A DIRECT QUOTE.  she didn’t say be ‘respectful’ she said ‘SUBMISSIVE’ but now wants to change the meaning when asked about her own words.  Simple valid question, she said she was submissive about a major life decision in the past, is she going to be submissive about major decisions in the future? ones that affect more people than just her own family. Amazing. And watching those of you who think she’s some kind of victim when asked a direct question about a direct quote, well, laughable!  I come to these con sites for a laugh, and you never disappoint. 

    • Humorless

      She tried to re-define “submissive” knowing that outside of a small contingent of fundy/evangey Xtians…it wouldn’t sell.  Her “expertise” in Bible semantics is matched only by her “expertise” in American History.

  • SCGirl

    Sexist question and Bachman should have called the moderator on it.  She should have stated:  “Interesting question.  Sexist, Personal and has absolutely no relevance in a Presidential Candidate Debate…next question.”  She should have eaten him alive for lunch for even suggesting such a thought.    Can you imagine that question being asked of Margaret Thatcher. Hilary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi?  I sure can’t.