Fred Thompson's Position on Consitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

CBN News ^ | August 20, 2007 | David Brody

[CheyennePress]

Have you heard Fred Thompson’s position on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? The story is a little confusing. On Friday, he was asked the following question by CNN’s John King:

King: “Would a President Fred Thompson actively push a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Thompson: “Yes”

Watch the entire question and answer here because once you do, that yes is not really a yes. As a matter of fact, here’s what the Thompson “unofficial campaign” put out after the CNN interview:

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.

Read more here.

So here’s my take. He’s against the amendment FOR NOW unless federal courts get so crazy that they overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act is FEDERAL legislation signed in 1996 by President Clinton that protects states from having to recognize gay marriages that are sanctioned by other states. Critics say the law is unconstitutional and everybody is waiting to see if the federal courts will strike it down. Then the real fight begins.

What Thompson seems to be saying here is that he’d be FOR the amendment if the 1996 FEDERAL law is overturned. This seems to be the only sensible position Thompson can take. He’s always been a federalist at heart so if he comes out in support of a FEDERAL constitutional amendment then it’s like he’s turning his back on his federalist principles. This position gives him some wiggle room so if DOMA is overturned, he can then say something like this: “Now is the time to act to put family values and preserving the sanctity of marriage over my personal federalist values”. (Or something like that)

Having said all that, his positioning here could be a problem with pro-family groups. They want a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage and they want a President who will push for it. Mitt Romney is the only top tier candidate that is flat out for one right now.

Will Evangelical leaders be OK with Thompson’s position? If you are in favor of a constitutional amendment, are you OK with this position? I imagine there are some “Fred Heads” out there who believe in a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. How does this sit with you?

[kingu]

I’m a big, big believer that the constitution should not be scribbled on for anything but the most of important matters. Since marriage is between a man and a woman, not sure why any other state should ever recognize same sex unions under that banner.

[A CA Guy]

Yep, he has his own views which would be what we would like the President to have, but thinks much of what people want should be voted on by a state by state basis.

He doesn’t want abortion either, but believes it is not a Federal or Presidential issue, it is a states rights issue.

At least that is how I’ve read it.

[MSF BU]

Well, we’ve modified it for alcohol and modifying the voting age by three years; certainly marriage is more important than either of those two.

[lesser_satan]

ping

[Mrs.Z]

Also, constitutional amendments are VERY HARD to pass.

Right now most sheeple are thinking no biggie.

BUT, if defense of marriage is overturned, people will force an amendment.

[org.whodat]

Have you heard Fred Thompson’s position on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

What a dumb ass question! Anybody that thinks they can ever get the necessary vote out of congress, not counting a two thirds vote by the states is sniffing glue.

[lesser_satan]

I’m fine with it, but I’d prefer a constitutional amendment that enshrines DOMA. Then they couldn’t strike it down.

[elizabetty]

So here’s my take. He’s against the amendment FOR NOW unless federal courts get so crazy that they overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.

This is the same argument Mitt Romney made a few weeks ago and, of course, was called a flip flopper or wishy washy on the subject.

Something Ideologues don't seem to understand is that good leaders plan for contingencies and interim time periods while working on getting real changes enacted.

[BfloGuy]

Well, we’ve modified it for alcohol and modifying the voting age by three years; certainly marriage is more important than either of those two.

Just because we've done "it" in the past doesn't mean we need to compound our mistakes

[Russ]

When will John King of CNN ask that question to the Democrat candidates? When will they be asked about their stand on abortion? How about gun control? NEVER, that’s when!

[ellery]

One of the main problems with the failed EU Constitution is that they tried to codify all sorts of social issues. That’s a big mistake. The Constitution exists to enumerate the limited powers of federal government. I prefer for these and other social issues to be handled by the states, as the Founders intended. If DOMA fails, then the answer would be to reserve the power to define marriage to the states at the Constitutional level. I think Thompson’s stance is perfectly appropriate.

Personally, I would like to see the feds get out of the marriage business altogether — marriage is primarily a religious and personal matter. That would obviate the need to address gay marriage at all. But that’s neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion.

[onedoug]

So would I, as long is there’s not a homosexual lobby trying to overturn and subvert the most basic of social contracts.

[Eastbound]

" 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."

I agree -- on both points. Censure the courts for re-defining a perfectly clear, legal, narrowly-defined and un-ambiguous word -- marriage, turning it into an ambiguous umbrella word that can be used to define marriage to more than one spouse, marriage to animals, marriage to close relatives, etc. There is no line to draw here on what marriage can eventually be defined as. Not good, not healthy.

Require them to reverse their activism and stupidity.

Fred's got it right.

[JAKraig]

He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states. . . . .

_________________________________________________________

There is nothing more important to the continued success of this country than the success of it’s families. Families are the basic building block of society. Tampering with it will destroy the society as we know it. Marriage in one form or another has existed for several thousands of years. It should be protected and encouraged. It is too important to be left up to the several states to do with it what they want. Lets get it defined and then put it into the constitution.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Yep, he has his own views which would be what we would like the President to have, but thinks much of what people want should be voted on by a state by state basis.

States vote to ratify amendments...

---

He doesn’t want abortion either, but believes it is not a Federal or Presidential issue, it is a states rights issue.

Not quite...

Here is what the Constitution actually says:

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;...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The Constitution exists to enumerate the limited powers of federal government. I prefer for these and other social issues to be handled by the states, as the Founders intended.

Try actually reading what the document says (e.g.; "which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes..."):

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;...

[Tailgunner Joe]

Thompson has the same position on this issue as John Kerry did during the 2004 election. He wants to leave it up to the states. He’s wrong on this just like he is wrong to want to leave abortion up to the states.

[NurdlyPeon]

So would I, as long is there’s not a homosexual lobby trying to overturn and subvert the most basic of social contracts.

...who are operating on both a state and federal level. These people are not playing by our rules! (They are more interested in results, I guess).

[Politicalmom]

PING!!

Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference

WARNING: If you want to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.