GOP debate moderators defend "submissive" question aimed at Bachmann

The moderators of Thursday night's Republican debate are defending a question posed to presidential candidate Michele Bachmann regarding her past remarks that wives should be "submissive" to their husbands. The question elicited boos from the Iowa debate audience and has spurred a range of responses.

During the debate, moderator Byron York of the Washington Examiner asked Bachmann about her 2006 remarks that she studied tax law because her husband told her to, even though she hated the idea. Bachmann said at the time, "But the Lord said, 'Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.'"

York asked, "As president, would you be submissive to your husband?"

Bachmann paused for a few moments before quipping, "thank you for that question, Byron." She then went on to offer up something of a non-answer.

"Marcus and I will be married for 33 years this September 10th. I'm in love with him. I'm so proud of him," she said. "And both he and I -- what submission means to us, if that's what your question is, it means respect. I respect my husband. He's a wonderful, godly man, and a great father. And he respects me as his wife. That's how we operate our marriage. We respect each other. We love each other."

GOP debate: Romney skates amid Pawlenty, Bachmann slugfest
Iowa GOP debate: Winners and Losers
Gloves come off between Pawlenty and Bachmann in GOP debate
In Iowa, GOP contenders in high-stakes battle for straw poll victory

On NBC's "Today Show" Friday morning, Bachmann was asked whether she was happy with the question and whether the issue needed clarification. Again, Bachmann gave a non-answer: "I was happy that I was able to talk about my wonderful husband," she said.

Penny Nance, president of the conservative group Concerned Women for America, released a statement Friday saying she was "taken aback" by the question, calling it "incredibly inappropriate and downright ignorant."

"Perhaps he should study theology a bit before asking a question about a complex Biblical statement on the home," Nance said, suggesting that some men in the GOP presidential field have given their wives plenty of say in their respective campaigns.

On Fox News' "Fox and Friends" Friday morning, York defended his question, saying, "This is a serious and legitimate question about something she has said and believe me, if she progresses very far in the campaign process, she would have been asked this question." York said Bachmann handled it well.

Fox News' Chris Wallace, who also served as a debate moderator, defended the question on The Mike Gallagher Show, a conservative talk radio show. In the era of "women's liberation," Wallace said, Bachmann's past remarks regarding submission to her husband "is worthy of note."

Leslie Bennetts, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair magazine and author of the book The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?, wrote on the Daily Beast today that she agreed the question was worth asking.

"A woman who pursues an entire career she hates the idea of, just because her husband told her to, is not a woman who should be occupying the Oval Office--or anything remotely near it," Bennetts wrote. "Given the insistence of Christian theology on male supremacy, female candidates who put that religion front and center in their campaigns should be required to explain what that means in terms of how they would govern, if elected."

10th Amendment up for debate within the Republican presidential field
Rick Perry, Sarah Palin: The elephants not in the room
CBSNews.com special report: Campaign 2012

14 Photos

The narrowing GOP presidential field

[Letsbehonest2000]

Of course the question is appropriate. Bachmann is running for POTUS! Asking her this question is asking her to clarify her own statement. What amazes me is the hands-off, kid glove approach of the media. The definition of submissive is not respect, it is unassertive, obedient, subordinate. She is running on her conservative, Christian beliefs. She knows what the Bible means when it says submissive; it does not mean respect! Why does Nora O'Donnell not press her on her respect answer when being interviewed on Face the Nation?

[jokr8790]

Yeah, submission does not mean respect. "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." Ephesians 5:22-33

[mattrick78]

Bachmann is not my favorite and I thought the question was sexist and unfair.

[Leaderless]

Was Hillary Clinton asked that questions? I think not.

[hopetrumps]

The question needs to be asked again and followed up besides. Her answer that "-- what submission means to us, if that's what your question is (yes, that was the question, Michelle!), it means respect . . ." According to my Webster's the meaning of submission is quite different than the meaning of respect---and her kind of "Christianity" does believe in literal interpretations, except of course when it isn't convenient for their own weird purposes.

[expatriate2]

If submission is synonymous with respect, then a couple that respects each other has a real problem.

[singerdn]

I guess the word 'submissive' was used because that implies the opposite of domination. The Bible teaches that the man should be the spiritual leader of his family. That does NOT mean he dictates every move and thought of his spouse. He's there as an "umbrella" of protection in the event it is needed and desired by the wife but not as a dictator. As we all know, a great many men fall short of this goal as family leader. What about all the single parent families? Certainly where there is no "ideal plan" a woman has to step up and take charge. Even in marriage many men prefer their wife's stepping forward in a leadership position rather than themselves. This 'submission' thing is totally voluntary and I think each couple works out what's best for them.

[expatriate2]

Your eomments are exactly why exegesis is so dangerous. In truth, the Bible says that a woman should not learn except what her husband teaches her. She should not be permitted to speak in church. The Hebreic law in Leviticus clearly states that if a woman has a MALE child, she will be unclean for seven days but if the baby is a FEMALE, she will be unclean for two seeks. So when a presidential candidate speaks of submission to her husband, citizens have every right to wonder to what degree she is religious or submissive. They could easily have a nut case First Gentleman telling her, "Press the red button, honey."

[zenia5]

Thank you expatriate2.....how true. Michelle Bachmann is so far to the radical religious right she's about to fall off that cliff. We definitely do not need her near the red button.

[tsigili]

Pretty much. That was an affront to her religion, and was a personal issue, not one for the media.

The media thinks anything is fair game, but of course, that is not really true.

[user000049586849302948603]

I'm pretty sure Bachmann is into S&Ms.

[101TTE]

She made the remark as a Politician at a political appearance.

Admissible political fodder.

[user000049586849302948603]

Mmmmm "submissive". I'm imagining some handcuffs and "tastefully" leather straps; maybe one of the orange ball gags in her mouth.

[JackWintner]

Brilliant MB answer about submitting to one's husband, translating into the language of the irreligious or anti-religious media (Byron York) the metaphor "submit in marriage" to "respect in marriage". It should not be necessary to have to do this for the morally challenged media, but MB's great on-target response was widely hailed by the Left and the Right.

[steeepe]

Brilliant? Hardly. She doesn't apparently know the difference between "submissive" and "respect". She's a dunce that hardly ever gets anything correct.

[zenia5]

I think this was a fair and legitimte question, especially since Bachmann primarily focuses on religious and social issues instead of important economic and international issues. I personally don't think her expertise extends much beyond issues such as homosexuality and religious rule.

Evangelical females certainly do not interpret "being submissive to their husbands" as simply "respecting their husbands". Their husbands rule the household and control their every move and thought. They are told how to vote, what to cook, how to dress, how to think. They generally are not free-thinking, independent women at all.