First, the federal government currently exercises jurisdiction on marriage, by prohibiting a number of states from practicing polygamy as a requirement for statehood. The Supreme Court upheld the federal role over a hundred years ago.
Secondly, the people have the power to amend the Constitution as necessary. The kind of marriage amendment supported by defenders of traditional marriage clears up any ambiguity on this subject, and defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
Fred's solution here not only turns that idea on its head, but it creates constitutional protection for gay marriage and polygamy among the states. That is not conservative.
WALLACE: Gay rights.
THOMPSON: Gay rights? I think that we ought to be a tolerant nation. I think we ought to be tolerant people. But we shouldn’t set up special categories for anybody.
And I’m for the rights of everybody, including gays, but not any special rights.
WALLACE: So, gay marriage? You’re against.
THOMPSON: Yes. You know, marriage is between a man and a woman, and I don’t believe judges ought to come along and change that.
WALLACE: What about civil unions?
THOMPSON: I think that that ought to be left up to the states. I personally do not think that that is a good idea, but I believe in many of these cases where there’s real dispute in the country, these things are not going to be ever resolved.
People are going to have different ideas. That’s why we have states. We ought to give great leeway to states and not have the federal government and not have the Supreme Court of the United States making social policy that’s contrary to the traditions of this country and changing that overnight. And that’s what’s happened in a lot of these areas.
I don’t see anything there that isn’t solid conservative.
As in many other instances too myriad to list, the fed gov, with the blessing of the SCOTUS, has overstepped its authority.
Secondly, the people have the power to amend the Constitution as necessary. The kind of marriage amendment supported by defenders of traditional marriage clears up any ambiguity on this subject, and defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
Interesting how your first and second points are at odds. If the fed gov already has the power, why amend the constitution? it's such a long, tedious, and difficult process. Why bother with all of that when congress can just pass a law?
Fred's solution here not only turns that idea on its head, but it creates constitutional protection for gay marriage and polygamy among the states. That is not conservative.
The absence of a federal prohibition does not equal constitutional protection. You're either lying or stupid. Take your pick. If the fed gov remains silent, the states can go either way. Just like what would happen if Roe were overturned. Some states would be pro abort. Others not. We don't have a union so we can all be bossed around by Washington DC. We have a union because we're supposed to be better off by pooling together in areas of defense, commerce, and infrastructure. That's all.