Posted on 10/04/2007 12:49:47 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
The Brody File is working around the clock and this time has found video of Fred Thompson talking this week to the Des Moines Register editorial board. He’s explaining his view of a federal marriage amendment. This video has not been out there before. It is now, courtesy of The Brody File. Watch it here.
Part of the transcription reads:
“A judge couldn’t impose this (gay marriage) state or federal unless they had the acquiescence or unless the state legislature moved on its own to put it into law. If a state chose to recognize it (gay marriage) and the Governor signed off and signed it into legislation so be it. My opinion would be that that would be a very bad thing and a very surprising thing.”
His position here is not new. But the words “so be it” may be just a tad bit flip for social conservatives. The marriage issue could very well be a problem for Fred Thompson with many Evangelical voters. I know that his view is not well received with certain Evangelical groups. Comments like "so be it" don't help.
You see, let me try and explain what’s going on here. The millions of religious conservatives who are adamantly for a strict federal marriage amendment believe that marriage IS a one size fits all approach. Thompson is trying the federalism track here but here’s where he gets into trouble. Let’s take slavery for example. Hypothetically, if a state legislature approves slavery and a Governor signs it into law, then “so be it”? Of course not.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbn.com ...
Yeah, because gay marriage is so much like human bondage.
What an insulting, obscene comparison.
Federalism cuts both ways.
I suspect the social conservatives are not as close to Fred as they originally suspected.
Does anyone know...is he opposed to Roe vs Wade, wanting to see it overturned, or does he support a federal prohibition of abortion?
Well, Thompson takes the same position on abortion by opposing the Human Life Amendment. And killing someone and enslaving them definately are comparable. So, I think that the analogy certainly fits Thompson’s position on abortion.
Well, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, so a state, at this point couldn’t vote it into being...in that way the example is flawed.
Since, at present we don’t have a “marriage amendment” and IMHO, passing one and ratifying it isn’t likely or imminent, I agre with what Thompson is saying.
My opinion would be that that would be a very bad thing and a very surprising thing.”
It doesn't look like the Brody File assumed context to the words so be it isn't what the video actually shows.
Tell me again, what Constitutional role does the President play in the Constitutional amendment process?
Slavery or rather the prohibition of it is guaranteed in the constitution, however, the judges and legislatures of the day chose to ignore and circumvent it’s abolition
Marriage and it’s administration however IS NOT a power specifically designated for the Federal government and therefor MUST be delegated to the states as is prescribed in the constitution. Fred’s solution is the only answer to keep states from imposing their laws on other states and still live within the constraints of true Federalism.
Thompson walks the walk unlike most who give lip service to Federalism/Constitutionalism but stray when it suits their purpose.
ping
Aaah, the Holy Grail... Better to get nothing and go back 50 steps than give up that dream of ramming a divisive Federal intervention down exerybody's throats that will never pass. Tilting at windmills, indeed.
Romney supporters just last night were urging an “evidence-based” campaign. I guess that doesn’t apply to their hit pieces.
The Romney Sleaze Machine rolls on.
well said...its easy to be a convenient believer in things.
Its much harder to stick to a belief fully.
Fred sticks to it and has the courage to say it.
Tell me again, what Constitutional role does the President play in the Constitutional amendment process?
But if Romney leaves his CFR membership off of his resume, all is well with them, I guess.
Please explain to me how if homosexual marriage is legalized in a few states, it won’t be forced on the rest of the states? (And the federal government. The IRS will have to recognize the marriage, for tax purposes. That will be used to show the federal gov’t recognizes homosexual marriage.)
The same way that common law marriages of some States aren't recognized in others or age of consent marriages in some States aren't recognized in others.
Differing marriage laws not recognized by other States isn't uncommon.
Whether we like it or not . If a liberal states citizens are OK with liberal legislation and elect liberals then this is what happens and there is nothing that can be done unless a court strikes it down. If there is nothing that can be done or if it is not struck down then “So Be It”. That is just simply the truth.
He governed like a liberal and he campaigns like one....wonder what that makes him?
“Tell me again, what Constitutional role does the President play in the Constitutional amendment process?”
The President doesn’t have a formal role in amending the Constitution. However, the majority of a President’s power is informal. The President has access to the media and can speak directly to the people in a way that no other elected official can. Also, he has vast informal influence on Capital Hill which he can use to push his prefered policy initiatives. Any attempt to pass a Constitutional Amendment would require an all out effort involving lobbying and shaping public opinion. In this effort, a strongly supportive President who is willing to lead the charge would be invaluable. On the other hand, a President who opposed such an effort could do irreparable harm to any attempt to generate public support for the Human Life Amendment. So, at the end of the day, a its not the President’s limited official powers which would be important. Instead, it is his vast informal power which could be critical in the passage and ratification of the Human Life Amendment.
The same way if you get a fishing license in Florida it isn’t good in Georgia.
Absolutely it’s a plus.
“Please explain to me how if homosexual marriage is legalized in a few states, it won’t be forced on the rest of the states?”
Read Thompson’s proposal, it explains it much better than I ever could.
“The IRS will have to recognize the marriage, for tax purposes.”
Why?
Your answer is correct: The President has NO Constitutional role in the Constitutional amendment process.
Repeal the 16th amendment, abolish the income tax, and send the IRS to hell.
Run, FRed, Run!!
Not exactly the way you are implying. Take Common Law Marriage for example. The Federal Government doesn't recognize common law marriage, although several States do. They do recognize for tax purposes that the States where they may be recognized do and thus allow the deduction, but it is only based on where the contract began. Because the IRS respects the State law in this regard, still does not make Common Law Marriage federally recognized. In other words, it respects the contractual laws of the State but it doesn't create a federal recognition of that law.
The Log Cabin’s speak it as plain as can be:
“Opposing gay and lesbian equality is inconsistent with the GOP’s core principles of smaller government and personal freedom.”
No Constitutional one, but a very significant political one should he choose to.
An Amendment would by definition be Constitutional so its not unconstitutional to support a federal marriage Amendment. The 10th Amendment merely says that all powers not granted to the federal government are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people. So, a Constitutional Amendment granting the federal government more power will never violate the 10th Amendment. Any attempt to define federalism as an absolute limit to the federal government exercising powers which are granted to it in either the Constitution or an Amendment to the Constitution is simply Judicial Activism. Some people seem to read the 10th Amendment as if it said that “Congress shall not intrude upon the sovereignty of the states.” However, this is simply not what it says.
It is only divisive to the Sodomites and the people who want to destroy this country.
Not only does Fred oppose federal prohibition of abortion, he doesn’t even support prohibition of abortion in his own state. He does not believe that life begins at conception. He’s pro-choice!
And where, precisely, in the Constitution, is that prohibition to be found????
What if you are in one of the 1/3 States where 99% of your citizens disagree. This federal action by 2/3rds of the States now overrides your State’s desire to create your own marriage law stating that marriage is recognized as one man, one woman.
Wanting a Constitutional amendment is a two way street. I know several very right wing people, libertarians, and liberals who agree and want to push for a ‘Privacy in Marriage’ act that would do just what I mentioned in the first paragraph. They haven’t pulled the trigger, they are testing the water on it now.
Horse hockey.
The headline is misleading. Fred is talking about the states making their own laws concerning gay marriage, and says he can’t imagine any state passing that law or governor signing it into law—the headline makes it sound like he’s saying, okay, all you gay people, marry away!!! >:-(
I hate when the media, ANY media, distorts what is really being said. :*(
Gay adoption is like slavery. Sex slavery.
Fred Thompson: Pro-Life. Always was. Always will be.
*
STRONGLY OPPOSES topic 1: "Abortion is a woman's right"
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson_SenateMatch.htm *
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm#Abortion
*
National Right to Life Committee on Fred Thompson:
"This morning, I cited reports being promoted by the pro-Romney blog Evangelicals for Mitt suggesting that Fred Thompson ran his two campaigns for Senate in Tennessee as a pro-choicer. Not so, National Right to Life executive co-director Darla St. Martin just told me.
St. Martin said that she went down to Tennessee in 1994 to speak with Thompson personally when he first ran for Senate, and that she determined he was against abortion.
'I interviewed him and on all of the questions I asked him, he opposed abortion,' St. Martin said. She told me that the group went on to support him in that election, and his record reinforced for her that their determination was correct.
'He has a consistent voting record that is pro-life,' she said.
On the NRLC website, they archive their congressional ratings back to 1997, so they include six of his eight years in the Senate. Thompson took the pro-life position on every vote he cast on the abortion issue..."
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=6017 *
"NARAL also rated nine other Republicans... Based on their abortion rights stance, the following Republicans received a grade of 'F': ...Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee..."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Try=No&Page=\Politics\archive\200007\POL20000714a.html
* "With 54% of the vote, pro-life former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander (R) won the seat of retiring PRO-LIFE Senator Fred Thompson."
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL11/senate.html *
"Listed below is the name, state and party of each of these senators along with Planned Parenthood's rating of them.
Name State Party PP rating...
Fred Thompson TN R 0% "
Damn, beat me to it....
It’s time to show these Mittwitts the door.
“Congress shall not intrude upon the sovereignty of the states.” However, this is simply not what it says.
It does not say that but it implies it.
Federalism is by definition opposed to arbitrarily increasing the size, scope, or authority of the Federal government by constitutional amendment or otherwise especially when said infringes on what have historically been issues administered by the state.
From a constitutional standpoint it would actually be much more consistent to argue for an amendment that guarantees all people regardless of sex be guaranteed the right to marry—but that debates for another day.
Suffice it to say that any amendment to the constitution that increases Fed power and reduces state power absent some powerful and demonstable societal benefit or grievance is antithetical to the principals of true Federalism.
If a state chose to recognize it (gay marriage) and the Governor signed off and signed it into legislation so be it. My opinion would be that that would be a very bad thing and a very surprising thing.
What Fred is saying is that the issue is not currently in the Constitution so it is inherently left to the states. From a legal point of view, each state could determine their own laws in this regard.
IMO, abortion should currently be in the same state and slavery should have been in that state before the 13th Amendment.
This does not mean that slavery, abortion, or gay marriage are morally correct practices. It just means they are/were not federal issues without specific constitutional amendments.
Regarding the 13th, Senator Trumbull (a sponsor) said the intent of the amendment was to "take this question [of emancipation] entirely away from the politics of the country. We relieve Congress of sectional strifes . . . .’’ (See http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/031.pdf, Page 4).
This highlights why we still need amendments regarding life and marriage to similarly take these issues away from the politics of the country and relieve Congress of strife regarding these issues. Until such amendments are ratified, each state is free to enact immoral laws according to the desires of their elected officials.
With the country closely divided on these issues, passage and ratification of these amendments is not likely in the near future. The situation will likely get worse and more contentious until a Leader inspires a change of heart in enough citizens to demand that Congress address the issue.
“I do not believe abortion should be criminalized.” - Fred Thompson
Btw, does Fred support abolishing the IRS and income taxes? Does he support the fair tax? Does he even support the flat tax?
It’s not like the Paulinati, though more than a few are superficial and petty in their attacks. But we give as good as we get.
Putting the fact that the 14th Amendment has been greatly expanded beyond its original meaning, there is no question that it meant to empower the federal government to trump state law in the abolishment of slavery.
Also the 14th amendment was meant to empower the federal legislature, not any part of the judiciary, to pass the specific laws that implemented this abolishment.
I'm not sure what corresponding part of the U.S. Constitution would apply to marriage.
It was Congress that used the 14th amendment to abolish slavery. It is activist federal judges that continue to misuse the 14th amendment to usurp the will of the people in the states in vast and arbitrary ways.
Thompson IS ALREADY IN TROUBLE and I think this is the issue that is doing it.
This is Thompsons “Amnesty” moment. Just like the republican leadership was deaf, dumb, and blind to the backlash on the amnesty bill; Thompson is being deaf, dumb, and blind on the marriage issue.
The marriage protection issue is a HUGE voting booth issue. The Supermajority passage rates speak volumes that people hold this issue in quiet importance. They may not tell pollsters, the MSM will not report it, but this is hurting Thompson BIG TIME.
He would be #1 on the charts but for this hard breaking stubborness.
If he simply comes out and says the recent cases have changed the legal landscape and a more firm amendment must stand then he has a smooth sailing.
The ONLY reason I can think he does not want to dump the unsupportable federalism argument is that he has some closet homosexuals somewhere on his staff and this is part of the donor deal worked out.
It is slavery to perversity.
Regardless of whether you like the comparison, Fred's plan would allow a liberal state legislature to force the federal government to recognize and reward homosexual marriage. In that way it is different from slavery, since as far as I know the federal government did not have to reward slavery.
I would compare the issue to self-evident truths that no government has a right to ignore. The nature of human family and the way in which new generations come into the world is a self-evident truth that states should not have the right to redefine and ignore.
Fred voted for the DOMA. Why has he changed his mind about the federal definition of marriage? If even one state legislature votes to recognize homo marriage then the federal gov't is obligated to treat those marriages like all other marriages under Fred's plan. Frankly I think it might give automatic recognition to Massachusetts marriages since the court forced the legislature to act and those bozos obeyed. Fred's amendment might overturn the court but it wouldn't nulify the stupid legislature. And before long courts will start recognizing the obvious, that the only difference between a marriage and a civil union is the name, so the court will claim that the legislature already voted in favor of homosexual marriage albeit by a different title.
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.