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 agree. Both tort reform and marriage there is a good case that we need uniform laws. But if it truely leads to a smaller federal government, the pluses outweigh the minuses.
he looks like a fine man .
Why couldn’t have I said that !
No, treason was erased.
Here's a more accurate (and unscripted) photo:
Notice that he's sitting, keeping his distance from people who might ask difficult questions, looks ill, and that his face has funereal pallor.
He might only be in his mid 60s buit he looks 80.
Even Utah?
Incorrect... States vote to ratify Amendments...
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices:
"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?...Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
States vote to ratify Amendments...
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...
I agree, as well. There is no workable way for states to have marriage laws that differ in such ways.
Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Even on state recognizing homosexual marriage will lead to all 50 states being forced into it in short order. If a few states do, it will be even faster.
Yeah, it’s just strange that he said the completely opposite thing yesterday.
I don't think the Founding Fathers intended to allow any state to run roughshod over all states. If a state wishes to honor same-sex unions, it should be allowed to do so but no other state that does not wish to honor same-sex unions should have any obligation to honor those created in the former. Congress is given the power to decide what effects judicial actions in one state should have in another; it could, even without a constitutional amendment, pass a law providing that any state could fulfill any and all obligations regarding other states' "civil unions" by offering unions that move in a certificate that says "Massachusetts says you're married. Good for them. Doesn't mean we care."
Moral issues were not intended to be determined by hacks in Washington. And that's quite clear.
Ignoring the fact that the magic number in marriage isn't two, but one. ONE man and ONE woman. A "marriage" with two women and no man is even further removed from normalcy than a marriage with two women and one man; at least the latter has the right number of men.
Such a position is workable on many, many important issues. But where it falls down is when it comes to the defense of the God-given, unalienable rights to life, liberty, and private property. That's why we have a Bill of Rights.
Did the state of Louisiana regard the people in question as having been Florida residents at the time of the wedding?
How about providing that in any lawsuit between parties in different states, either party may refuse to accept the lawsuit in the other state; if both parties so refuse, then the issue is decided in federal court under federal rules.
If a state passed a law providing that anyone who purchased a product in that state and was unhappy with it for any reason could demand to be paid three times the purchase price, businesses within that state would be subject to lawsuits from citizens of that state, but businesses in other states could refuse to accept the lawsuits in that venue.
In fact it's not and Mr. Madison was quite clear where that power was intended to lie. If we were to believe your premise about the Framers, their intent was to force all the states to accept New England Puritanism (which in fact wasn't the case)
That's why we have a Bill of Rights.
That's great. Course the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the separate and sovereign states until the 20th century and that took a SCOTUS packed with Progressives to divine that. Course that's what today's Republicans really are. Political descendants of early 20th century busybodies.
Of course next you'll start quoting from one of the first secessionist documents on this continent as if that proves your position...
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.