Bachmann's circular reasoning

There is circular reasoning, then there's CIRCULAR REASONING. This is such a great and perfect example of illogical statements that I had to post it. Here goes, Michelle Bachmann on marriage in-equality:

We all know that marriage is between one man and one woman. If it were two men together, then it wouldn't be one man and one woman, so therefore it wouldn’t be marriage. This reasoning is clear.

Seriously. This woman hopes to be President of the United States of America. People, millions support her. If this is the level of thinking that goes into her Presidential aspirations, I fear for the future if she were to become President. An issue as simple as this, being so poorly construed and thought through, should be evidence that she shouldn't...can't...be trusted with anything weightier.

addendum
As an added logical bonus, I just read the following on a legal blog:

Judge Walker’s extensive findings of fact suggest that this pitched battle over marriage largely emanates from religious believers – he concludes, among other things, that “[r]eligious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”  This is far too simplistic. Public opinion polls show that many religious believers support legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Even religious institutions fail to fall squarely on one side of the issue, with some opposing same-sex marriage legislation while others prepare to celebrate same-sex marriage rites.

I'm sure there's a more official term, but unless I'm mistaken, this is a case of inverse Venn diagrams.

What I mean to write is; Judge Walker didn't write that all religious people are against marriage equality, but that all (most) reasons against marriage equality are religiously motivated.  The difference is important. One is an attack upon a certain class of people (the religious). The other serves to legally nullify the reasoning behind anti-equality laws due to the purpose of the laws being outside the realm of the state.  It's an easy mistake, and one made too often. In fact, I find myself telling people often that they've "got their Venn diagrams backwards." Normally that garners an awkward look since in passing conversation it's a strange thing to say...but it makes sense.