Posted on 08/18/2007 9:59:26 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
Friday, August 17, 2007
Nix That [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
From Team Thompson:
I'm afraid CNN story you linked mischaracterized Thompson's comment on gay marriage. They've since altered the story....without noting the change.
For the record, the Thompson camp has officially noted that "Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage." He supports the rights of States to choose their marriage law for themselves.
The Thompson camp issued this statement:
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.
08/17 09:37 PM
I’m glad Tommy Thompson dropped out. Now I won’t get them mixed up......................./s
"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
Fred is a federalist first, so he is against social policy being made at the federal level. Fred has been very consistant in his federalist view of government.
I know, it’s refreshing to see someone actually adhering to the Founders’ vision. The US was never meant to be a place where all states were carbon copies of each other.
"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
After April 1865, state sovereignty was erased forever.
"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
In the interest of CLARITY on the points of view of Rudy and Fred.. Rudy is not opposed to gay marriage on the basis of a social ideal..while Fred’s stand is strictly a Federalist view- one of the rights and obligations of states to dictate their own laws.
BIG difference.
Now- we may well see other candidates try and usurp and use the constitutional principles that Fred has long been a proponent of- but please don’t out him and Rudy in the same category.
Fred Thompson is wrong on this.
It is already a federal issue. Legally the genie is already out of the bottle and the weasel words ala Hillary Clinton, are very very disheartening.
If he is only going to adopt the same BS position along the lines of a Guiliani, Romney, then his much anticipated entry is pointless. (other 1% candidates are dead in the water and a waste of electrons)
The above is the original Republican Platform of 1856.
The GOP was formed to fight against "those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy, and slavery."
One man, one woman.
Several states, including Utah, were only allowed into the Union if they would foreswear anything but one man, one woman laws and constitutions.
The idea that this pseudo-federalism has anything to do with real federalism is ridiculous.
Doesn't the full faith & credit clause do just that - a coupled married in one state is considered married in all the other states, right?
The point is to put the genie back in. Anti-federalism is what’s causing the conflict in this country. Federalism will release the tension by being a viable compromise for both sides. That’s how it’s meant to be.
newsflash that day is LONG past.
Full faith and credit and commerce clause interpritations have already done that.
States other than for very minor issues ARE becoming clones.
The marriage debate IS a federal issue because of the federal income tax. The federal government WILL eventually be forced to accept homosexual based marriages for purposes of taxation via judicial imposed overturning of the mere law of 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
In order to prevent that constitutional challenge, the common law status of marriage has to be codified in the constitution. PERIOD.
on this issue it is already too late.
The politicians are just trying to protect campaign donations.
F.Thompson is not going to get a dime if he keeps this weasel effort as his first debated policy position.
Oh - so where does that leave the Federal Government? If California approves Gay Marriage, but Texas doesn't, how is the Federal Government going to handle that? Will the "spouse" in a gay marriage be eligible for spousal Social Security benefits if they are in California, but not in Texas?
What about that same scenario - a gay couple "married" legally in California moves to Texas - do they "loose" rights? What about tax filing? Will they be able to file jointly while California Citizens, but not if they move to Texas or any other state that does not recognize this screwed up marriage?
And therein is the problem. This is an interstate issue. I can completely understand what Fred is TRYING to say - he is trying to give power back to the states (a great idea), but is ignoring the real scope of this issue. Without federal protection, the "rights" gained if a state chooses to legalize gay marriage will ultimately be spread to states that oppose same-sex marriage because of the "equal protection" clause.
This has to be a federal issue.
What about adoption?
26 states do not provide for a second “mommy” only a mother and a father.
Will california adoptions be recognized in other states for the recreational sex partner? What about social security death benefits for minors?
Leaving it to the states is 100% pure unadulterated politician weasel words.
What next “support the troops”? “though I am personally against abortion”?
If we follow this absurd development perhaps we should return immigration laws to the INDIVIDUAL states too the way it was 100+ years ago. After all California should determine their OWN state immigration needs.
A Constitutional amendment that specifically mentioned marriage would take precedence over the FF&C clause for that act only. It would get tricky if you were trying to enforce a property settlement, child custody, or support agreement across state lines, if it emerged from a divorce of same-sex partners, however.
In any case, such an amendment has about as much chance of passing as does an amendment that would prohibit same-sex marriage. You need three-quarters of the state legislatures to ratify an amendment, and there will always be at least thirteen "blue" states that would keep either one from becoming part of the Constitution.
You make some good points. Though, while I’ll sure take a Constitutional Amendment, to clarify for all these idjuts, none is really needed. As I pointed out above, protecting the sanctity of marriage nationally, federally, has a long history in America. There are several states in the West who were not allowed into the federal union until they swore off plural marriage.
For once I agree with you on something! I don’t remember polygamy being a states rights issue in the 19th century. The Federal government imposed its will on the West on this and a host of other issues.
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.