Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Quick Reference
Fred Thompson FAQ: THE Fred Thompson Web Resource
Posted on 09/07/2007 10:41:59 AM PDT by Josh Painter
Speaking in Sioux City, Iowa, moments ago, Fred Thompson endorsed an amendment to the Constitution that would prevent state judges from altering the definition of marriage without the direction of their states' legislatures.
Mr. Thompson has been under fire from social conservatives in recent days for refusing to support the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would define marriage in the United States as being between one man and one woman. He's said that such an amendment would conflict with his views on federalism.
Along with restraining state judges, the amendment Mr. Thompson is proposing would also mandate that no state be forced to recognize gay marriages from other states (such as, say, Tennessee being forced to recognize gay marriages from Massachusetts).
Mr. Thompson's proposal came in response to the second of two questions Mr. Thompson got from the crowd in Sioux City on the question of what the federal government's role should be in regard to homosexuality.
More to come, including video of Mr. Thompson's statement...
FRED in IOWA Ping!
He need to get on record to show that he wants to prevent federal judges from doing the same.
He need to get on record to show that he wants to prevent federal judges from doing the same.
If a constitutional amendment defining marriage goes against his views of federalism, he needs to explain how the alternative amendment he is proposing does not. That makes no sense at all. The only possibility I can think of is if such an amendment basically said that there was nothing in the US Constitution upon which a state judge could rely on in mandating same sex marriages. In other words, his proposed amendment would essentially state that it was up to each state to determine whether or not it same sex marriage is permitted in that state. If his views of federalism do not allow for the US Constitution to define marriage, then his version of federalism also should not dictate how a state should decide the issue.
The actions of a few judges is what is motivating his decision process on this I believe.
This is interesting. I hope to see the video tonight. Makes sense.
Well, good to see he’s on the record about favoring an amendment on marriage.
When the gay marriage issue first came up in the mid 90s in a court case there, many states did not specifically define marriage as a man and a woman. So then many states did pass laws on the subject, as did the federal government. And we were told that a federal amendment wasn’t needed, and that defining marriage in the law was good enough.
But as we see in Iowa, judges are now comfortable with overturning laws that define marriage as 1 man 1 woman. Some opposed to marriage amendments have said it’s not needed because if the regular law defines marriage, that’s good enough. Well, clearly it’s not good enough, as liberal judges have shown they are not shy about throwing out marriage and family law.
It has always been the states that issued marriage licenses and the federal government has never done that. Each state has always made their own conditions for the basis of a marriage, what age you can get married. It has always been state law since the beginning of our country. It would be far easier to duke it out in your own state with your own state legislators than to try to do it nationally.
Something like he is proposing might also hold back a federal judge in making a ruling.
Fill their holes with soap.
Souls! Souls, and Hope, Hope.
Fair enough.
If the Defense of Marriage Act, which Fred voted for, is overturned on the federal level, I’m sure he would back a federal amendment restraining judges.
When I first saw the headline, I was hoping that it meant that Fred lined up with the FMA.
Mitt Romney is supportive of it, and that would would have been a good thing.
But on reading it, it seems to say something quite a bit weaker. “Speaking in Sioux City, Iowa, moments ago, Fred Thompson endorsed an amendment to the Constitution that would prevent state judges from altering the definition of marriage without the direction of their states’ legislatures.”
I don’t see how a Federal Constitutional amendment directing state judges is any less violative of ‘federalism’ than a simple legal declarative statement that marriage is defined as a union of one man and one woman. So Fred is signing up for an amendment that keeps the bad stuff but doesn’t keep the good stuff - which is to settle this issue once and for all for the whole country.
This is the text of the FMA.
“SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
Thinking about how much further the Federal Government goes in tying the states on matters like environment, education, health care, welfare, workers regs, etc. This is about as much of a threat to States Rights as the 13th amendment abolishing slavery.
Nevertheless, Pedantic types will use the Federalism red herring to attack a good idea... eg Ron Paul doesnt like the FMA:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
I’m quite underwhelmed by this unwillingness to properly defend the traditional 1500-year-old definition of marriage in western civ. FMA support should be a slam dunk.
Okay a second question. How do you deal with the federal benefits of marriage? Since Fred already voted for the DOMA, he has voted to recognize marriage as one/man and one woman for the purposes of the federal gov't anyway. So is DOMA enough to make it a federal policy that no homosexual marriages are awarded federal recognition and benefits?
I don't like this, and I think it is perfectly legit for the federal gov't to set boundaries just as they did with Utah in the 1800's. But this may be the best we can hope for at this point. Everything else being suggested is much worse.
Nicely said, and an interesting paradox: how can you legislate social conservative values on the federal level while simultaneously supporting states’ sovereignity? This is Thompson trying to pander to all sides; and it just might work.
THIS WAS OBVIOUS JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
1) A county judge made this ruling
2) He told the county court house to IMMEDIATELY IMPLEMENT his ruling which is odd on a controversial ruling such as this
2) Iowa requires a 3 day waiting period which some how ONE perverted “couple” found a judge to provide the exemption BEFORE the ruling was put on hold.
More historically ignorant phony pseudo-federalism.
Utah and three other states were only allowed into the Union on the condition that they would forever swear off plural marriage. The enabling legislation for those fours’ statehood Congress passed made it clear that their statehood could be withdrawn if they broke this pledge, changed their state constitutions, or in any way breached this agreement.
Someone owes those states an apology if marriage is not a federally permissable area for Congress to address, I guess.
Legal polygamy in Utah, anyone?
Alas, the Amendment as described by the news articles doesnt address that. one state could pass gay marriage by popular vote, and a Federal Judges could overturn DOMA and make Alabama recognize that marriage in a divorce case. This amendment wont stop Alabama from being required to recognize gay marriage. So it only plugs some of the holes in the dyke (no pun intended :-) ) against gay marriage.
ONLY the Federal Marriage Amendment would settle the issue and stop gay marriage completely, comprehensively and permanently. Without FMA, it will be an ongoing (and ultimately for us, losing) battle.
This is the text of the FMA:
“SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
Any word yet on Thompson calling for an end to the Dept. of Education or any other agencies that clearly fall outside the Enumerated Powers?
/s
Judges will do what ever they d*** well please, Constitution be d***ed.
Perhaps he simply wants to assert that the judicial branch cannot supersede the will of the voters as expressed either by direct referendum or via their representatives in the executive and legislatures to redefine marriage either for each state or require incompatibly defined marriage recognition between states.
It's seems a bit nuanced and not a reflection of my view on government's role in licensing couples but it also appears to not dilute our ideals of federalism.
Ultimately I'll see what he actually said and means.
EV - Hey, we agree. Fancy that. :-)
Good point wrt polygamy.
See my comment on #17:
“Thinking about how much further the Federal Government goes in tying the states on matters like environment, education, health care, welfare, workers regs, etc. This [ Federal Marriage Amendment ] is about as much of a threat to States Rights as the 13th amendment abolishing slavery.”
Sure state judges are sometimes willing to overturn laws that define marriage, such as was done in Iowa. But, IMHO, the federal government has no business telling states how their judicial and legislative branches should function. That’s up to each state to decide. What Thompson is proposing seems far more violative of the basic principles of federalism than the amendment he opposes.
bump
Expanding on that point to include everything else would be nice :-)
ONLY the Federal Marriage Amendment would settle the issue and stop gay marriage completely, comprehensively and permanently.
FMA could be repealed within two generations.
Somewhat the same applies in the case of passing a Reagan style Human Rights Amendment to the Constitution. That is even more unlikely in the short term. Overturning Roe v Wade would send it back to the states by default. Thereby ending abortion on demand as policy of the US government. That would be fine with this conservative.
Conservatives need to take what we can get on these hot button social issues, all the while keeping up unrelented pressure on our elected officials.
Sounds to me like all he is proposing is that a judge can't make the decision - it has to be the legislature. Seems okay to me. What am I missing?
The chief problem is the full faith and credit clause. No state should be able to impose its domestic institutions on another state.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
This would be, if anything, an infraction.
I might add, it does make me feel more protected from rouge judges upholding the likes of San Fransisco mayors, if you know what I mean.
Changed his mind?
Amending a state constitution, like amending the Federal constitution, is not a straightforward task. Fred is a Federalist and he is acting as a Federalist. Let the state legislatures enact legislation properly defining 'marriage'. It can also be addressed on the Federal level, but Fred's Federalist beliefs rightly tell him this is the place to start.
Uh...no, Fred has always said marriage is between a man and a woman and that the principles of federalism are what he stands on.
No mind changing that I detect.
newzjunkey wrote: “Civil marriage licensing has always been a state issue and it should remain so.”
Actually, it has always been a county function.
“Like you I am confused by this new proposal. Why not let each state amend their state constitution to forbid state judges from interpreting that state’s constitution as requiring that gay marriage be allowed?”
For each state to amend their state constitution would take longer. My understanding of Fred’s proposal is that the Federal Court would mandate that State Courts could not overturn marriage as man & woman without the State Legislators voting for the overturn. This would put the decision in the hands of the people of each state where it should be.
“You seem to believe your will should supersede that of another state on the marriage issue.”
Yes, in our mobile society, different basic definition of mariage definitions between states, will be untenable. If a gay couple marries in Mass. and moves to Maryland and gets divorced, do they go to MD family court? What does the judge say?
It’s really simple: If you think gay marriage is a mistake for our society, you must consider it a mistake for our whole society, not just some fraction of states.
” That isn’t how we live in this nation.”
Yes, we do live this way. There is a lot of things defined in Federal law.
Slavery is outlawed by the Federal Constitution for example. This is a restriction on the kinds of relations and contracts that a state can regulate. Marriage as a legal institution is similarly a basic definitional matter.
“Fred’s proposal seems to protect individual states’ freedom to define civil marriage on their own terms without fear of being forced by the will of neighboring states (or judicial activism).”
- the latter part is incorrect, as I pointed out earlier. Your state *WILL* be forcd into gay marriage if another state passes it and a Federal Judge overturns DOMA. QED.
“FMA could be repealed within two generations.”
Genetically engineered pigs could fly. But they wont.
The more I think about this, the more I like it. I don’t want goofy judges in my State to be able to dictate morality to other States. On the other hand, I’m not comfortable with the idea of definitions of morality coming from the Federal Constitution either. That kind of top-down approach does indeed run counter to Federalism. We conservatives don’t like it when the Federal government does that in areas like education; so why do we want it with regard to marriage?
The “full faith and credit” clause does need some re-work. I find it odd that a State like California might want it to apply to gay marriage, but not firearms. Is it fair that they demand that CA gay marriages be recognized in, let’s say, Utah, while refusing to recognize a Utah CCW permit here? If one State issued license is valid in both States, then why not the other?
FRed’s on the right track here.
Just wait until my wives hear about that.
It is generally federal judges (or local judges who are mangling the constitution) who try to override the legislation on homosexual marriage that states have put into place. Seems to me that is what Thompson's proposal is about.
Why not have one definition of marriage nationwide?
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.