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
Forewarned is forearmed. I don’t know of anyone who wants to know what dark secrets are out there. Thats why they grow and fester and later become a danger to our young.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has written in favor of reducing the age of consent to TWELVE! She used to be an ACLU Chief Counsel.
We do not want a president who would nominate any lawyer for the USSC with this type of “blind spot”.
I would like to know which staffer put this “position” into the Team Thompson position papers.
Someone better transmit the concerns to those staffers.
The book is called, “Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud,” I believe, written by Dr. Judith Reisman who is contactable through
NARTH- National Association for Reorientation Therapy for Homosexuals.
“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. “
Either Thompson is a lying sack of sh*t or he’s so ignorant of Con Law issues that he should have his Law Degree revoked.
If marriage isn’t an obvious example of something that NEEDS to be protected under the Full Faith and Credit clause, then what is?
What type of idiot would think that the anarchy of having marriages appear and disappear as state borders are crossed is a good idea?
Gee, I guess you could be a “legal” bigamist if you married a second person in a state that didn’t recognize your first marriage (just to name one idiotic result of Thompson’s moronic “reasoning”).
we are supposed to just accept a candidate “because”.
Now its going to be the identical arguments as we heard with the Rudybots a few months ago.
“don’t let ONE issue affect....”
“he is able to beat X”
Newsflast to Team Thompson, if he is just going to pander to the closetted homosexuals (ie career state department types, or hollyweird) he may win the nomination but he will not get a dime or get actually support. (see Mel Martinez’s recent meltdown over the ONE issue of immigration)
The thing that bothers me most is the sheer arrogance that underlyies this nuanced answer offered as the “official” position. It is predicated that we the voters are gulible enought and sans legal knowledge enough to know bovine waste materials when offered as a steak.
no.
BTW NY STATE JUST GAVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO CANADIAN HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES.
it IS a federal issue now. ROCK SOLID.
It is too late for pseudo scholars.
The legal scholarship is clear. This is federal and a constitutional amendment can only do the job.
Don’t forget Clinton only signed the 1996 law becasue he personally believed it would be found unconstitutional.
NY state just IGNORED the 1996 DMA LAW because it was not a constitutional amendment.
You areguments are now gone.
Your arguments are empty.
By that absurd logic we should put immigration back in the hands of the states.
A constitutional amendment is 100% needed and now with NY State imposing CANADIAN LAW on the USA via full faith and credit, there is no other choice.
The founding fathers did NOTHING of what you suggest. If that paulist logic were followed we would still have the anathema of slavery.
welcome to the 21st century.
NY recognizes Canadian same-sex marriages
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1883164/posts
Full Faith and Credit in Action
1996 Defense of Marriage Act OVERTURNED.
Nonsense.
There are six states which allow for common law marriage and specifically FL, since you mentioned it, will actually recognize those states common law marriage.
While there ARE age restiction cases which marriage were not recognized WHILE THE PARTIES WERE MINORS. Once the age of consent was reached those marriages have been upheld.
As for first cousin marriages you are wrong again. Consider Albert Einstein’s marriage.
>>>The politicians are just trying to protect campaign donations.<<<<
Calpernia has done a lot of research into the funding of candidates by homosexual activists. Hopefully she is around to add her imput.
Legally the precident stage is set.
You now have a Consitutional test case funded by homo-advocates comming to a state near you.
Federal Constitution trumps state.
If you do a simple westlaw or lexis search you will see the plethora of appelate decisions on cases like this.
Here you have a judge actually giving MORE credence to an out of country law over his own state.
This has permutations of a state stepping over federal international relations.
Gee, I guess you could be a “legal” bigamist if you married a second person in a state that didn’t recognize your first marriage (just to name one idiotic result of Thompson’s moronic “reasoning”).
Wow! That is kinda scary.
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.