Fred Thompson's Position on Consitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

CBN News ^ | August 20, 2007 | David Brody

[CheyennePress]

Have you heard Fred Thompson’s position on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? The story is a little confusing. On Friday, he was asked the following question by CNN’s John King:

King: “Would a President Fred Thompson actively push a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Thompson: “Yes”

Watch the entire question and answer here because once you do, that yes is not really a yes. As a matter of fact, here’s what the Thompson “unofficial campaign” put out after the CNN interview:

In an interview with CNN today, former Senator Fred Thompson’s position on constitutional amendments concerning gay marriage was unclear.Thompson believes that states should be able to adopt their own laws on marriage consistent with the views of their citizens. He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states, or that activist judges should construe the constitution to require that.If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states.Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Read more here.

So here’s my take. He’s against the amendment FOR NOW unless federal courts get so crazy that they overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act is FEDERAL legislation signed in 1996 by President Clinton that protects states from having to recognize gay marriages that are sanctioned by other states. Critics say the law is unconstitutional and everybody is waiting to see if the federal courts will strike it down. Then the real fight begins.

What Thompson seems to be saying here is that he’d be FOR the amendment if the 1996 FEDERAL law is overturned. This seems to be the only sensible position Thompson can take. He’s always been a federalist at heart so if he comes out in support of a FEDERAL constitutional amendment then it’s like he’s turning his back on his federalist principles. This position gives him some wiggle room so if DOMA is overturned, he can then say something like this: “Now is the time to act to put family values and preserving the sanctity of marriage over my personal federalist values”. (Or something like that)

Having said all that, his positioning here could be a problem with pro-family groups. They want a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage and they want a President who will push for it. Mitt Romney is the only top tier candidate that is flat out for one right now.

Will Evangelical leaders be OK with Thompson’s position? If you are in favor of a constitutional amendment, are you OK with this position? I imagine there are some “Fred Heads” out there who believe in a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. How does this sit with you?

[kingu]

I’m a big, big believer that the constitution should not be scribbled on for anything but the most of important matters. Since marriage is between a man and a woman, not sure why any other state should ever recognize same sex unions under that banner.

[A CA Guy]

Yep, he has his own views which would be what we would like the President to have, but thinks much of what people want should be voted on by a state by state basis.

He doesn’t want abortion either, but believes it is not a Federal or Presidential issue, it is a states rights issue.

At least that is how I’ve read it.

[MSF BU]

Well, we’ve modified it for alcohol and modifying the voting age by three years; certainly marriage is more important than either of those two.

[lesser_satan]

ping

[Mrs.Z]

Also, constitutional amendments are VERY HARD to pass.

Right now most sheeple are thinking no biggie.

BUT, if defense of marriage is overturned, people will force an amendment.

[org.whodat]

Have you heard Fred Thompson’s position on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

What a dumb ass question! Anybody that thinks they can ever get the necessary vote out of congress, not counting a two thirds vote by the states is sniffing glue.

[lesser_satan]

I’m fine with it, but I’d prefer a constitutional amendment that enshrines DOMA. Then they couldn’t strike it down.

[elizabetty]

So here’s my take. He’s against the amendment FOR NOW unless federal courts get so crazy that they overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.

This is the same argument Mitt Romney made a few weeks ago and, of course, was called a flip flopper or wishy washy on the subject.

Something Ideologues don't seem to understand is that good leaders plan for contingencies and interim time periods while working on getting real changes enacted.

[BfloGuy]

Well, we’ve modified it for alcohol and modifying the voting age by three years; certainly marriage is more important than either of those two.

Just because we've done "it" in the past doesn't mean we need to compound our mistakes

[Russ]

When will John King of CNN ask that question to the Democrat candidates? When will they be asked about their stand on abortion? How about gun control? NEVER, that’s when!

[ellery]

One of the main problems with the failed EU Constitution is that they tried to codify all sorts of social issues. That’s a big mistake. The Constitution exists to enumerate the limited powers of federal government. I prefer for these and other social issues to be handled by the states, as the Founders intended. If DOMA fails, then the answer would be to reserve the power to define marriage to the states at the Constitutional level. I think Thompson’s stance is perfectly appropriate.

Personally, I would like to see the feds get out of the marriage business altogether — marriage is primarily a religious and personal matter. That would obviate the need to address gay marriage at all. But that’s neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion.

[onedoug]

So would I, as long is there’s not a homosexual lobby trying to overturn and subvert the most basic of social contracts.

[Eastbound]

" He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states, or that activist judges should construe the constitution to require that.If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states.Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage."

I agree -- on both points. Censure the courts for re-defining a perfectly clear, legal, narrowly-defined and un-ambiguous word -- marriage, turning it into an ambiguous umbrella word that can be used to define marriage to more than one spouse, marriage to animals, marriage to close relatives, etc. There is no line to draw here on what marriage can eventually be defined as. Not good, not healthy.

Require them to reverse their activism and stupidity.

Fred's got it right.

[JAKraig]

He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states. . . . .

_________________________________________________________

There is nothing more important to the continued success of this country than the success of it’s families. Families are the basic building block of society. Tampering with it will destroy the society as we know it. Marriage in one form or another has existed for several thousands of years. It should be protected and encouraged. It is too important to be left up to the several states to do with it what they want. Lets get it defined and then put it into the constitution.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Yep, he has his own views which would be what we would like the President to have, but thinks much of what people want should be voted on by a state by state basis.

States vote to ratify amendments...

---

He doesn’t want abortion either, but believes it is not a Federal or Presidential issue, it is a states rights issue.

Not quite...

Here is what the Constitution actually says:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The Constitution exists to enumerate the limited powers of federal government. I prefer for these and other social issues to be handled by the states, as the Founders intended.

Try actually reading what the document says (e.g.; "which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes..."):

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...

[Tailgunner Joe]

Thompson has the same position on this issue as John Kerry did during the 2004 election. He wants to leave it up to the states. He’s wrong on this just like he is wrong to want to leave abortion up to the states.

[NurdlyPeon]

So would I, as long is there’s not a homosexual lobby trying to overturn and subvert the most basic of social contracts.

...who are operating on both a state and federal level. These people are not playing by our rules! (They are more interested in results, I guess).

[Politicalmom]

PING!!

Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference

WARNING: If you want to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.

[Eastbound]

"Lets get it defined and then put it into the constitution."

Marriage has been very successfully defined since it came into existence. What has to be defined is the role judges are authorized to play in the judicial process.

Congress should be required to put these perverse judges on trial for subverting and confusing the language, denying society the right to the sanctity of marriage.

I don't think an amendment to the constitution would be necessary to protect the word, marriage, as it was defined previous to the Mass. supreme court's arragance in destroying the word.

The time for resolving this may be long past, as the court should have been laughed out of the country a long time ago. I think to maintain the order of our society, the governor's or the president can issue a proclamation which would be just as effective.

Congress can also pass a federal law which denies these folks any rights to recognition of their newly-acquired faux status by another state. Again, an amendment to accomplish this isn't necessary.

Fact is, to steal a word and re-define it to suit one's agenda should be a felony. The definition of any word in any law or contract can now be deliberately changed because of this precendent. It shouldn't be allowed to stand or continue else we've become a nation of men and not of laws.

[TAdams8591]

"He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states, or that activist judges should construe the constitution to require that.If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states.Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage"

Unless there is a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, states who define marriage that way, will be forced to accept marriages between same sex couple from other states. Fred has to understand that. He is hardly stupid.

[TAdams8591]

"Yep, he has his own views which would be what we would like the President to have,"

Except when we disagree with those views. : )

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"So here’s my take. He’s against the amendment FOR NOW unless federal courts get so crazy that they overturn the Defense of Marriage Act."

So here's my take. The author has no clue about a constitutional confederation of sovereign states. Thompson's position is spot-on.

[Hail Spode]

sounds a lot like Ron Paul’s position on it.

[CheyennePress]

>>>Congress can also pass a federal law which denies these folks any rights to recognition of their newly-acquired faux status by another state. Again, an amendment to accomplish this isn’t necessary. <<<

And for federal tax purposes, are these people married? Kind of hard to claim a federaist bent if you’re not going to take it all of the way and say that a state’s marriage laws don’t extend to the federal tax laws....

I think we need an amendment, simply put. The left has already shown that they can topple laws with judges. It’s best to nip it in the bed and regulate the judges while the people still have a voice.

We’ve seen how difficult Roe v. Wade has been to overcome. Marriage would be far, far more difficult. In my estimation, those who oppose a Constitutional Amendment on federalist grounds are either swinging from the ivory towers or simply being too myopic/naive on the issue.

The left isn’t going to stop on this until they’ve destroyed the family. I say put up the biggest fight you’ve got in you. And that’s an amendment.

[CheyennePress]

>>>Thompson has the same position on this issue as John Kerry did during the 2004 election. He wants to leave it up to the states. He’s wrong on this just like he is wrong to want to leave abortion up to the states.<<<

I agree with you on this 100%. I just wanted to see what the concensus was on here before I commented.

[dirtboy]

He’s wrong on this just like he is wrong to want to leave abortion up to the states.

I hate to tell you this, but unless 3/4s of the states ratify an amendment banning abortion, we won't have it. So it basically IS up to the states at some level, and I don't think 3/4s of the states would ratify an amendment.

So you can wait for the glass to be full. If Roe is overturned and a majority of the states ban abortion, then the glass is half-full - but at least some children are being saved for the time being.

[The Pack Knight]

I hate to tell you this, but unless 3/4s of the states ratify an amendment banning abortion, we won't have it. So it basically IS up to the states at some level, and I don't think 3/4s of the states would ratify an amendment.

Not only that, but the President has absolutely no constitutional role in amending the Constitution. The President makes no proposal, has no veto, and signs no documents. The most he can do is use his influence in Congress and in the states, and on such a contentious issue, his would be but one voice among many, and not necessarily the most important one.

The President can't cause the constitution to be amended, and he can't stop it from being amendment. The only way he can affect the issue at all is to sign federal statutes protecting marriage and appoint judges who believe that the full faith and credit clause does not bind states to honor homosexual marriages created in other states. It's rather clear from this interview that he will do both.

Fred Thompson is opposed to gay marriage, and that's sufficient for me. His stance (which I happen to agree with) on a constitutional amendment is as immaterial as would be his stance on who should be Speaker of the House. He can affect neither.

[dirtboy]

Unless there is a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, states who define marriage that way, will be forced to accept marriages between same sex couple from other states.

Only if the Defense of Marriage Act is overturned by the courts - which is exactly what Fred's position is - that such an amendment becomes necessary only if an activist judge overturns that act.

Fred has to understand that. He is hardly stupid.

You don't seem to understand the snippet you posted. DOMA is law of the land for now. Until such time it is overturned, no state will be forced to accept as legal gay marriage from another state.

[MrB]

The funny thing about the definition of marriage is that it HAS been “between one man and one woman” for centuries,

but the dictionaries, VERY RECENTLY have changed the definition to “two people”, and leftists act like that is and has always been the definition.

[trisham]

The left isn’t going to stop on this until they’ve destroyed the family. I say put up the biggest fight you’ve got in you. And that’s an amendment.

************

Agreed.

[Tailgunner Joe]

The liberals didn't leave it up to the states when they legalized abortion and neither should we leave it up to the states once we have enough conservatives on the court who believe that killing innocent babies is wrong and must stop.

The supreme court must overturn Roe V. Wade by ruling that abortion illegally deprives innocent persons of life without due process.

No state has the power the legalize murder any more than they have the power to legalize slavery.

I for one am glad that Thompson as president would have no say in this issue, since the position he hold is so clearly wrong, and so politically cowardly. As far as I am concerned, if you want murder of innocent babies to be left up to the states, then you are pro-choice and immoral. As long as abortion exists anywhere, it must be fought until it is defeated. If Thompson doesn't want to lead the fight, then he should not lead the nation. The same goes for gay marriage. Thompson's position is apparently that he wants gay marriage in some states. I won't accept gay marriage anywhere, so Thompson's position is quite unnacceptable to me.

[dirtboy]

The liberals didn't leave it up to the states when they legalized abortion and neither should we leave it up to the states once we have enough conservatives on the court who believe that killing innocent babies is wrong and must stop. The supreme court must overturn Roe V. Wade by ruling that abortion illegally deprives innocent persons of life without due process.

So SCOTUS overturns Roe. That puts it back to the states.

And unless 3/4s of the states ratify an amendment banning abortion, it will remain that way. You completely discarded that fact. Do you think that MA,VT,ME,CT,NY,RI,CA,OR,WA,MD,NJ,WI,HI,AK and MN are going to vote to ratify such an amendment? That's 15 states. You need, what, 38 to ratify?

No state has the power the legalize murder any more than they have the power to legalize slavery.

You declaring it so does not make it so.

I for one am glad that Thompson as president would have no say in this issue, since the position he hold is so clearly wrong, and so politically cowardly. As far as I am concerned, if you want murder of innocent babies to be left up to the states, then you are pro-choice and immoral.

Once again, how are you going to get 3/4s of the states to ratify such an amendment? It's easy to thunder and call names. Dealing with the ground truth is another matter entirely.

[Tailgunner Joe]

I’m telling you, we don’t need a constitutional amendment, we only need one more supreme court justice. I may not be able to declare that the 14th amendment protects persons from being deprived of life without due process, but the supreme court can, and unless Thompson intend to appoint justices to the supreme court who believe that the constitution protects life, then he should not be president and I for one, as well as most pro-lifers, will not support him.

[dirtboy]

Fred has come out against Roe. Until you get Roe overturned, any subsequent step ain’t gonna happen. Allowing a fair majority of states to outlaw abortion is a vast improvement over the status quo. If Fred wins the nomination and the alternatives are candidates who won’t seek to have Roe overturned, then what are you going to do?

[mysterio]

How about a Constitutional Amendment that restores the first 10?

[Tailgunner Joe]

Banning abortion in half the states will just double the rate of abortion in the other half of the states. That’s not what the pro-life movement is fighting for. If that’s what Thompson wants, and that’s what the justices he will appoint will bring about, then he is an enemy of life.

[The Pack Knight]

No state has the power the legalize murder any more than they have the power to legalize slavery.

Perhaps not, but they do have the power to define what constitutes murder in its various degrees, and to determine what sanctions are applied to those who commit it.

At what time during pregnancy is a person created? Conception? Viability? Some particular trimester, or when some particular organ begins to function? Sometimes homicides are considered justified. When would an abortion be justified? To preserve another life? To prevent a severely deformed infant from being born?

If an illegal abortion has been performed, who would be criminally responsible? The doctor, the mother, or both? What if the mother is a minor? Is a premeditated abortion 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter? If there is a capital murder statute, should it be applied in abortion cases?

If the Supreme Court held precisely as you said it must, "that abortion illegally deprives innocent persons of life without due process", then, absent an amendment to the Constitution, these are just some of the questions that would have to be answered by the states in their respective legislatures and courts. They very well might not all come up with answers you approve of. Even people who consider themselves pro-life could come up with varying answers to most, if not all of them. If some states do not sufficiently criminalize and punish abortion, do we then resort to an amendment?

If so, what sort of laws should be left to the states? Should we even bother with states if they're only allowed to decide unimportant issues?

[Tailgunner Joe]

The states have those powers which are not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states.

The Constitution prohibits States from enforcing laws which deprive persons of life without due process.

[The Pack Knight]

The Constitution prohibits States from enforcing laws which deprive persons of life without due process.

If one commits justifiable homicide, one has deprived a person of life without due process. Are justifiable homicide statutes unconstitutional?

[Tailgunner Joe]

Homicide is justifiable in self-defense, but it is not justifiable against an innocent baby who poses no mortal threat to anyone. If state law defined abortion on demand as justifiable homicide, that law should be ruled unconstitutional.

[The Pack Knight]

Homicide is justifiable in self-defense, but it is not justifiable against an innocent baby who poses no mortal threat to anyone.

I certainly agree with that. However justifiable, though, the fact remains that someone killed in a justifiable homicide is still deprived of life without due process.

What I am saying is that the 5th and 14th Amendments restrain the state from depriving a person of life without due process. They are silent on what states do with individuals who deprive a person of life without due process.

The closest I know of a law against individuals violating the due process clauses is 18 USC s 242, part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. However, as Abe Fortas noted in the opinion United States v. Price (383 U.S. 787, 1966), the infamous "Mississippi Burning" case, section 242 only applies when "the person indicted has acted 'under color of law'". Even then, the crime is only a misdemeanor.

If state law defined abortion on demand as justifiable homicide, that law should be ruled unconstitutional.

Lets say a state creates, by statute, a crime called "misdemeanor homicide by abortion", and directs that the penalty is a fine not more than $100 and no more than 30 days incarceration, and that, as with most misdemeanors, the sentence is usually one year probation with no jail time. Would that law be unconstitutional, even though the state is not permitting abortion? Where does the constitution draw the line on how much penalty homicide should incur?

[Tailgunner Joe]

Could slavery be legal then as long as slaves are deprived of their life, liberty, or property by individuals rather than by the state?

What if a state said that killing illegal aliens was a misdemeanor and the penalty for it was a fine and no jail time?

Should unborn babies have less rights than illegal aliens?

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

My question with his position is this: If a state grants gay marriage to its citizens, does that mean the new man/man or woman/woman couple is entitled to federal benefits as a married couple? If not, why? And on what legal grounds?

I would live with Fred's posiiton if I thought it were truly possible. But if a homosexual "couple" files federal taxes as married in one state where homosexual marriage is legal, then they move to another state, how can they be then required to file federal taxes as single?

If his position is that they should get no federal benefits then he is essentially defining marriage as one man one woman for the federal government. In fact the DOMA already does that. So as federal policy homosexual marriage is already banned.

Ever since Utah was required to end polygamy the federal government has had a say in the federal definition of marriage.