“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.
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.