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.
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?
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.
The future is: “queerdom”. I mean the queers are winning now and in the immediate future. The heteros are beginning to fight back. Heteros can’t win on the federal level, and they will not be able to on the state level. That leaves counties and towns. Heteros must organize on this level. There is already such a town, Ave Maria, Florida. There maybe more that I don’t know about.
“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”).
A federalist...
Can anybody recommend a good brand of popcorn?