(full post here)
Posted on 08/29/2007 2:18:58 PM PDT by AFA-Michigan
In an interview I conducted this week in Iowa with presidential candidate Mike Huckabee...Read below when I asked him if Fred Thompson's decision to NOT support a federal marriage amendment will be a problem for him.
"For many conservatives, this is a very critical issue…a constitutional amendment to clearly define marriage, as we did in my state when I was Governor, is something that many of us believe ought to happen at the federal level so that we put this to rest and we don't keep fighting it state by state by state or we have some federal court say that whatever federal recognition of one state has to then apply to the other states," Huckabee said. "So it is a very important issue for many conservatives. I think if a person doesn't take a strong stand or acts as if it's not important it's going to be signal. It's not that it's just the issue but the fact that it's going to send a signal to conservatives that a person may not really be fully tuned in to the importance of maintaining the integrity and structure of marriage as we know it."
The comment above could be read simply like this: "That Fred Thompson, he's not quite there yet on the federal marriage amendment, bless his heart!"
(Excerpt) Read more at cbn.com ...
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/216124.aspx
And thus the divorce precedes Fred's political "marriage" to social conservatives for whom constitutional protection of marriage between one man and one woman is a non-negotiable issue.
And on which he aligns himself with the tiny fringe element among Republicans in the U.S. Senate who in 2006 voted against such an amendment: McCain, Collins, Gregg, Specter, Snowe, and Chafee.
As long as the Defense of Marriage Act is not struck down by courts, Fred sees no need for an amendment.
If such happens, then Fred is for such an amendment.
We practically need a clean slate of candidates. What is up with this election’s crop of Republicans? Did they make some deal with the Rats? Because the true believer Rats aren’t especially happy with their choices either. Was this some collusion between Rats and Republicans to make it impossible for Americans to have an alternative to their agenda? (thinking of illegal immigration, for one issue)
Or it could be read like this
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.--Federalist 45
How about social 'conservatives' quit worrying about handing over more power to the federal government and get busy within their respective states changing minds before passing another law? I'm against homosexual unions as much as any social 'conservative'. But I refuse to think the only solution is amending the Constitution or legislating every moral issue in Washington.
I thought he was a federalist.
Preety much looks like Fred’s a shoe in, then, doesn’t it?
That's a federalist stance. The notion is to not allow federal reciprocity to force gay marriage in one state to be treated as marriage in a state that does not want gay marriage.
LOL
“As long as the Defense of Marriage Act is not struck down by courts, Fred sees no need for an amendment.”
Uh-huh. The McCain excuse.
Which means Fred — unless and until his campaign issues another “clarification” — currently opposes a Marriage Protection Amendment.
The day the Supreme Court validates so-called homosexual marriage by striking down the federal DOMA, it’ll be too late to undo the damage after the fact.
Ask the folks trying to put the genie back in the bottle in Massachusetts.
And contemplate 50 different definitions of marriage — homosexual, polygamous, group marriage...
I bet Huckabee supports a Constitutional amendment banning tobacco & trans-fats though.
The fact is if you have the Constitutional Amendment, the SCOTUS can’t strike it down.
In this way a Constitutional Amendment TRUMPS a congresionally passed law.
legally speaking this IS already a federal issue and the absurd hand wringing that this is a federalism issue is about as meaningful as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
It is already federal because of taxation.
It is already federal because of immigration law.
In fact NY state has a state court case working its way through the system which has a CANADIAN homosexual marriage recognized by that state.
There are complete Full Faith and Credit issues which reached critical mass back in 1996 with the Hawaii decision.
Arguing federalism on marriage is about as useful as demaning federalism be applied to immigration and we return to all states handling immigration individually on a state by state basis.
Still, your bloviating on this issue is so transparent considering that Huckabee supports open borders, higher taxes, and nanny-state laws. Huckabee should run for President - of some church's Sunday school.
I wouldn’t vote for Huckabee. He was on Bill Maher’s show, kissing his ass like a king and sucking up to the liberaltarian office. Plus your hero from Hope wants a national ban on smoking. I’m electing a President, not my Daddy.
Read, we don't want limited government, we want our government. About what's expected from social 'conservatives' these days. Either the Constitution means what it says or it does not. Either Madison intended what he meant or he did not. So which is it?
The Framers did not intend for the national government to become involved in every issue or ill that affects the citizens of the respective states. Oh wait, I bet they didn't have immorality back then either did they....
Exactly right! Thanks for saying it.
This issue is of top importance to me. I will never vote for anyone who supports gay marriage in any way. That includes all the variety of names (civil unions, domestic partners, etc.). My conscience will never allow me to vote for someone who will advance the gay agenda. Period! No compromise.
McCain ALREADY SAID he does not give a ***t if homosexuals can marry.
I think the Federalist answer is just cover for those who really do not care if the courts allow it.
This is the first issue that is giving me serious pause with Fred Thompson. SERIOUS pause.
If he is going to have the same BS and Guiliani, Romney or McCain then we now have Rudy McRomney into Rudy McRomney-son.
However Thomson has, in fairness issued contradictory statements of late. He better just NAIL a solid position in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment or he should just stay home.
I am too, but marriage is one of those areas that must have a national standard as to what ‘marriage’ is in order for states to abide by the “Full Faith and Credit” clause in Article 4 of the Constitution - which is under the purvue of Congress.
Basically you would have rogue states with gay marriage trying to force other states with laws prohibiting gay marriage to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit clause. This is wrong. That’s why an amendment is need to clearly spell out what marriage is in the United States, so that all states have the same definition. By this example if only 1 state had gay marriage they could force the other 49 to have to accept gay marriage even if the other 49 states had laws against gay marriage. This is not Constitutional. One state cannot dictate and override the other 49 because they have a law opposite of all the rest but try to use the Full Faith and Credit clause to nullify those 49 states’ other laws or state constitutional amendments, or to bypass a federal law such as DOMA.
This is why we need a federal amendment in this PARTICULAR case. this is one case where it makes sense to have a federal constitutional amendment.
That is the weasel answer.
We are already there.
If we wanted a weasel answer we could go for McCain.
>>>As long as the Defense of Marriage Act is not struck down by courts, Fred sees no need for an amendment.<<<
So as the Islamists pushed towards the gates of Vienna, the Austrians no doubt said they’d be perfectly happy with a smaller wall as long as the Islamists’ artillery didn’t clear them, eh?
This is just poorly thought out on so many levels. So what happens when gay couples marry in New York and demand that Louisiana recognize their marriage?
This definitely needs to be addressed at the federal level.
ALL of us would have to pay EVEN IF only one state has homosexual marriage and it is FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED.
Homosexuals contribution nothing to society but this would make them a drain that ALL OF SOCIETY must pay into.
If DOMA is struck down, I wonder if we could have a constitutional amendment similar to DOMA that would override the FF&C clause on the ghey marriage issue, thus preserving some semblance of federalism.
Romney has supported this amendment since he was Governor of Mass. He went before Congress and argued on its behalf when this first came up for a vote.
Why are you grouping him with Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson?
In this way a Constitutional Amendment TRUMPS a congresionally passed law.
You mean like the federal gun laws we have, which are all illegal under the 2nd Amendment?
The simple truth is that the Courts can flout the law just like Congress can. The big difference is that we have to wait until the Justices die, whereas we occasionally kick one of the corrupt SOBs in Congress out on his rearend.
ping!
But we HAVE to have our culture defined by the Federal Government and amended to the Constitution. For one thing, I'd like to see an amendment guaranteeing we have to drive on the right side of the road. Can you imagine if people started driving on the left side?! The horror! /s
>>You mean like the federal gun laws we have, which are all illegal under the 2nd Amendment?<<<
The Second Amendment is incredibly vague. I’d like to see how it’s violated, for instance, if I ban rotary barreled machine guns. You can still bear arms. Still run a militia. Matter of factly, the wording on the amendment could have very easily been fixed to include “ALL arms.” But it wasn’t.
A Defense of Marriage Amendment could be very easily worded, as well. EX: Marriage shall solely be defined as between one man and one woman.
The federalist stance on this just makes no sense. We could have very easily passed this amendement in the 1980s if need be. Probably in the 90s, as well. It really has become time to shut the door on the repeated attempts to undermine traditional marriage.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you want to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
From the ACLU website at:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/index.html
Lesbian Gay Rights : Relationships : Press Releases view all
Marriage Lawsuit Advances to California Supreme Court (08/17/2007)
SAN FRANCISCO — In briefs filed today with the California Supreme Court, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Lambda Legal argue that California violates its own constitution by denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry.
The Chuck and Larry Next Door: 10Couples.org Features Same-Sex Couples Who Face Hardships Because They Cannot Marry (07/18/2007)
NEW YORK - After moviegoers have a laugh at Adam Sandler and Kevin James pretending to be a gay couple in the new film I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, the American Civil Liberties Union is urging them to visit 10Couples.org to find out what it’s really like to be denied legal protections for your family. The website, developed by Public Interest and the ACLU, features videos of 10 same-sex couples who explain the difficulties of trying to protect their families without access to the many protections that come automatically through marriage.
ACLU of Massachusetts Celebrates Vote to Preserve Marriage Equality (06/14/2007)
BOSTON - The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts celebrates today’s momentous vote in the legislature defeating a proposed amendment to end marriage equality in Massachusetts. The final vote to defeat the amendment was 151 to 45.
ACLU of Massachusetts Applauds State Attorney General’s Defense of Marriage Equality (05/16/2007)
BOSTON - Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley recently made a forthright statement of her well-founded legal judgment in a speech to the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association: marriage equality in the Commonwealth must be defended in the event that a proposed constitutional amendment survives the next legislative step onto the ballot. The ACLU of Massachusetts applauds Martha Coakley’s leadership on this issue.
Responding to ACLU Demands, California Prisons Allow Same-Sex Couples Access to Family Visitation (05/15/2007)
SAN FRANCISCO - The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has agreed that it will no longer bar lesbian and gay prisoners access to overnight family visitation with their registered domestic partners. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has requested the statewide policy change in response to demands by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a gay man who was told by prison officials that domestic partners were barred from family visits. As required by state law, the department is conducting a public hearing on the proposed policy change today in Sacramento.
Lesbian Gay Rights : Relationships : Publications
Election Day Is Critical For Gay Partnerships (10/22/2004)
Lesbian Gay Rights : Relationships : Legal Documents view all
California Marriage Case - Respondents’ Supplemental Brief (08/17/2007)
California Marriage Case - Respondents’ Consolidated Reply Brief on the Merits (08/17/2007)
Testimony by Alex Cleghorn before California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (05/15/2007)
California Marriage Case - Respondents’ Opening Brief on the Merits (04/02/2007)
Novak & McCreary v. New Mexico Retiree Health Authority - Complaint (02/05/2007)
Lesbian Gay Rights : Relationships : Legislative Documents view all
Letter to the U.S. Senate Urging Support of S. 1328, the Uniting American Families Act (06/11/2007)
Letter to the U.S. House of Representatives Urging Support of H.R. 2221, the Uniting American Families Act (06/11/2007)
ACLU Letter to the House Urging Members to Consider Harmful Consequences of the “Sleeper Sentence” in the Federal Marriage Amendment (09/14/2004)
ACLU Letter to the House Urging Members to Consider Harmful Consequences of the “Sleeper Sentence” in the Federal Marriage Amendment (09/14/2004)
Testimony By Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Office, Before the Democratic Party Platform Committee (06/19/2004)
Lesbian Gay Rights : Relationships : Resources view all
A Brief History of the California Marriage Cases (08/17/2007)
Novak & McCreary v. New Mexico Retiree Health Authority - About the Plaintiffs (02/05/2007)
Sam Beaumont’s Bio (01/25/2006)
Sam Beaumont - A Gay Rancher’s Fight to Keep His Home (01/24/2006)
California Marriage Case - Amicus Briefs Filed by Organizations and Individuals in Support of Marriage Equality (01/10/2006)
Lesbian Gay Rights : Relationships : Fact Sheets
Frequently Asked Questions about New Jersey Civil Unions: A Practical Guide for Same-Sex Couples (02/16/2007)
Novak & McCreary v. New Mexico Retiree Health Authority - Questions & Answers (02/05/2007)
Lesbian Gay Rights : Relationships : Supreme Court Cases
California Marriage Case - Case Profile (03/14/2005)
California Marriage Case - Case Profile (03/14/2005)
Lesbian Gay Rights : Relationships : Court Cases
Novak & McCreary v. New Mexico Retiree Health Authority - Case Profile (02/05/2007)
Helgeland v. Wisconsin - Case Profile (04/20/2005)
Alaska CLU v. State of Alaska (04/01/2005)
Karen Wood and Terry Tavel are plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit to provide government employee benefits to partners of same-sex couples.
Deane & Polyak v. Conaway - Case Profile (03/01/2005)
AND JUST FOR FUN A LIST OF ACLU LETTERS SENT ON LEGISLATION: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relatedinformation_legislative_documents.html
Lesbian Gay Rights : Legislative Documents
Letter to Senate Urging Affirmative Vote for Kennedy-Smith Hate Crimes Prevention Amendment (07/13/2007)
ALCU Letter Urging Senate to Support Equal Immigration Protections for Same-Sex Couples (06/13/2007)
ACLU Letter Urging Senate to Support Equal Immigration Protections for Same Sex Couples (06/13/2007)
Letter to the U.S. House of Representatives Urging Support of H.R. 2221, the Uniting American Families Act (06/11/2007)
Letter to the U.S. Senate Urging Support of S. 1328, the Uniting American Families Act (06/11/2007)
ACLU Letter Urging House of Representatives to Support Equal Immigration Protections for Same-Sex Couples (06/11/2007)
ACLU Letter to the House Urging Support for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (05/02/2007)
The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges you vote “YES” on H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, when it comes to the House floor tomorrow.
Iowa Senate File 427 (04/26/2007)
Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) - Letter from Representatives Frank, Pryce, Baldwin and Shays Requesting Cosponsorship (04/24/2007)
Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) - H.R. 2015 (04/24/2007)
ACLU Statement on Hate Crimes Legislation Before the Crime Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary (04/17/2007)
The American Civil Liberties Union respectfully submits this statement to strongly urge the Subcommittee on Crime—and the full House of Representatives—to pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
THERE IS MORE:
there are websites and groups all over that are pushing this stuff. The Federalism tack is a sacrificial anode the homosexual activists are using to get an open and free shot at Full Faith And Credit.
Delay on supporting a federal marriage amendment is just making sacrifices at the temple while there is a tiger at the city gates.
because it is more than just this one issue.
True conservatives know why FRed takes that position. Do you?
How about amending the Full Faith and Credit Clause to specifically exclude marriage. That way, 1 state cannot impose it’s will on another.
Just a thought.......
I see Huckabee sniping at Fred in such a nice way (As only Huckabee can do) lately and it is bringing him attention. One must wonder if Huckabee sees Fred as the most likely front runner to the nomination.
Huckabee endorses another ban, Man I hope he gets elected so that he can get down to the important work of protecting the american people from themselves via the federal government’s gun against our foreheads.
I’m afraid of all of the decisions I might have to make for myself before he and congress can make them for me by banning all the bad stuff.
What a jerk!!
Show me an Amendment to the Constitution that the SCOTUS has been able to say is unconstitutional.
The fact is the way the FMA would be written is short, simple and clear, with no wiggle room to interpret it in a liberal way. If you have seen the language examples, there would be no ambiguous terms there, and it would be in plain, readable english.
You are right that it is important to have people on the SCOTUS who do not view it as a living document, but rather as the founders regarded it (strict constructionalist). They are much less likely to try to twist the Constitution to their own desires than the ‘living, breathing’ liberal crowd would and does.
I just think that this amendment, as it would be written, would be extremely, extremely difficult to interpret any other way than what it is intended to enshrine. I think you’d see rebellion of several states to this if such a ruling would ever occur. Besides, if we have a court that would do this, they’d also be the same court that’d knock down DOMA.
I don’t know why this necessarily even applies. If I have a fishing license in MN, it doesn’t mean I can fish in New York without buying their license. If I have a concealed carry permit in MN, it doesn’t mean I can carry outside of MN. There seems to be a great deal of inconsistency on interpretation of FF&C.
Obligatory picture of Fred
Well stated! (Applause)
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
BUMP
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
For everyone who’s against the amendment—If you’re against legislating against every moral issue, why not make abortion legal too by that logic? Why pass any laws banning immoral practices, just let ‘em continue to happen, at least the government will have less influence! Come on that’s ridiculous. The government should uphold the values that have kept society together for these thousands of years and should reflect morality in its legislature, especially when there are those out there who want to destroy them. These values are under attack by the left and we have to do all we can to stand up to it. If it *HEAVEN FORBID* requires adding another Constitutional amendment then so be it! Why is that such a big deal?
---->Same group involved in McCain-Feingold too, right? The Gang of 14 types. Hmmmm....
All federalists, I am sure.
Don’t care, don’t care.
Like Huckabee, Like Fred, either will do.
I agree. Some things are more important than FRederalism. For every good rule there is at least one great exception.
This definitely needs to be addressed at the federal level."
Without question. You are undeniably correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.