(full post here)
Posted on 08/29/2007 2:18:58 PM PDT by AFA-Michigan
In an interview I conducted this week in Iowa with presidential candidate Mike Huckabee...Read below when I asked him if Fred Thompson's decision to NOT support a federal marriage amendment will be a problem for him.
"For many conservatives, this is a very critical issue…a constitutional amendment to clearly define marriage, as we did in my state when I was Governor, is something that many of us believe ought to happen at the federal level so that we put this to rest and we don't keep fighting it state by state by state or we have some federal court say that whatever federal recognition of one state has to then apply to the other states," Huckabee said. "So it is a very important issue for many conservatives. I think if a person doesn't take a strong stand or acts as if it's not important it's going to be signal. It's not that it's just the issue but the fact that it's going to send a signal to conservatives that a person may not really be fully tuned in to the importance of maintaining the integrity and structure of marriage as we know it."
The comment above could be read simply like this: "That Fred Thompson, he's not quite there yet on the federal marriage amendment, bless his heart!"
(Excerpt) Read more at cbn.com ...
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/216124.aspx
And thus the divorce precedes Fred's political "marriage" to social conservatives for whom constitutional protection of marriage between one man and one woman is a non-negotiable issue.
And on which he aligns himself with the tiny fringe element among Republicans in the U.S. Senate who in 2006 voted against such an amendment: McCain, Collins, Gregg, Specter, Snowe, and Chafee.
As long as the Defense of Marriage Act is not struck down by courts, Fred sees no need for an amendment.
If such happens, then Fred is for such an amendment.
We practically need a clean slate of candidates. What is up with this election’s crop of Republicans? Did they make some deal with the Rats? Because the true believer Rats aren’t especially happy with their choices either. Was this some collusion between Rats and Republicans to make it impossible for Americans to have an alternative to their agenda? (thinking of illegal immigration, for one issue)
Or it could be read like this
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.--Federalist 45
How about social 'conservatives' quit worrying about handing over more power to the federal government and get busy within their respective states changing minds before passing another law? I'm against homosexual unions as much as any social 'conservative'. But I refuse to think the only solution is amending the Constitution or legislating every moral issue in Washington.
I thought he was a federalist.
Preety much looks like Fred’s a shoe in, then, doesn’t it?
That's a federalist stance. The notion is to not allow federal reciprocity to force gay marriage in one state to be treated as marriage in a state that does not want gay marriage.
LOL
“As long as the Defense of Marriage Act is not struck down by courts, Fred sees no need for an amendment.”
Uh-huh. The McCain excuse.
Which means Fred — unless and until his campaign issues another “clarification” — currently opposes a Marriage Protection Amendment.
The day the Supreme Court validates so-called homosexual marriage by striking down the federal DOMA, it’ll be too late to undo the damage after the fact.
Ask the folks trying to put the genie back in the bottle in Massachusetts.
And contemplate 50 different definitions of marriage — homosexual, polygamous, group marriage...
I bet Huckabee supports a Constitutional amendment banning tobacco & trans-fats though.
The fact is if you have the Constitutional Amendment, the SCOTUS can’t strike it down.
In this way a Constitutional Amendment TRUMPS a congresionally passed law.
legally speaking this IS already a federal issue and the absurd hand wringing that this is a federalism issue is about as meaningful as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
It is already federal because of taxation.
It is already federal because of immigration law.
In fact NY state has a state court case working its way through the system which has a CANADIAN homosexual marriage recognized by that state.
There are complete Full Faith and Credit issues which reached critical mass back in 1996 with the Hawaii decision.
Arguing federalism on marriage is about as useful as demaning federalism be applied to immigration and we return to all states handling immigration individually on a state by state basis.
Still, your bloviating on this issue is so transparent considering that Huckabee supports open borders, higher taxes, and nanny-state laws. Huckabee should run for President - of some church's Sunday school.
I wouldn’t vote for Huckabee. He was on Bill Maher’s show, kissing his ass like a king and sucking up to the liberaltarian office. Plus your hero from Hope wants a national ban on smoking. I’m electing a President, not my Daddy.
Read, we don't want limited government, we want our government. About what's expected from social 'conservatives' these days. Either the Constitution means what it says or it does not. Either Madison intended what he meant or he did not. So which is it?
The Framers did not intend for the national government to become involved in every issue or ill that affects the citizens of the respective states. Oh wait, I bet they didn't have immorality back then either did they....
Exactly right! Thanks for saying it.
This issue is of top importance to me. I will never vote for anyone who supports gay marriage in any way. That includes all the variety of names (civil unions, domestic partners, etc.). My conscience will never allow me to vote for someone who will advance the gay agenda. Period! No compromise.
McCain ALREADY SAID he does not give a ***t if homosexuals can marry.
I think the Federalist answer is just cover for those who really do not care if the courts allow it.
This is the first issue that is giving me serious pause with Fred Thompson. SERIOUS pause.
If he is going to have the same BS and Guiliani, Romney or McCain then we now have Rudy McRomney into Rudy McRomney-son.
However Thomson has, in fairness issued contradictory statements of late. He better just NAIL a solid position in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment or he should just stay home.
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.