Posted on 09/05/2007 3:43:28 PM PDT by papasmurf
The influential Arlington Group, a coalition of prominent leaders of the so-called "religious right, has decided to withhold their planned support for the fledgling campaign of former Senator Fred Thompson.
(Excerpt) Read more at update08.foxnews.com ...
No, they do in fact “get it.”
“Thompson adamantly opposes gay marriage but thinks that it should be left to the states to decide whether or not to amend their constitutions to ban the practice. This tracks with his generally Federalist positions on issues like tort reform.”
On a great many issues, I could be classed as a federalist, wanting states to decide. However, over the issue of homosexuality, the country needs to be all one way are all another. Otherwise we have caos. As a evangelical Christian conservative, I cannot endorse a postion that allows homosexuality to be “legitamized” by legal recognition of either “marriage” or “domestic partnership.” I like Senator Thompson. However, I believe his stand on this is so much because of his federalism, but because he doesn’t want to deal with it. He may have come from Tenn. but he has spent way too much time in Hollywood where common sense morality is thrown out the window. If he thought a little more like someone from Tenn. he might not try to dodge this....it is just too important and issue to evangelicals (the base of the party). Besides, there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to engage in homosexual practice. The recent decision throwing out Texas sodomy laws was again an example of a SCOTUS making law contrary to the people’s wishes.
I guarantee that the drafters and signers of the Constitution never intended homosexuals to be considered “married” or even acceptable. George Washington drummed any caught in the Continental Army out of service.
You said it. Some see this issue of a constitutional ban as “big government”. How is one extra amendment prohibiting an immoral practice “big government”? When values as sacred as marriage are under attack by the left, we have to stand up for them and put and end to leftist threats. Letting the states decide one by one would take way too long, and this is something that the country needs to be together on.
As Dennis Prager said, “As the Left breaks down the self-discipline of Judeo-Christian religions, more and more laws are needed simply to keep people from devouring each other.” We need a law to keep people from engaging in homosexualtiy, and the quickest and surest way is to add an amendment. The whole country would have to follow through on it, and there’d be none of this recognizing gay unions in some states and not others crap. JUST BAN IT NATIONWIDE!
Which is more of a threat—”big government” or an attack on marriage? The latter.
And another thing, the only reason there already isn’t an amendment about this is because the founding fathers would’ve assumed people to just not engage in that kind of behavior, because in those days everyone had a general sense of morality and good and evil. Now that people have lost that, we need an amendment standing up for marriage and barring the sickos from being recognized as “married.”
Sorry, one more thing: It’s not big government coming from the left, it’s “big government” used for the purpose of upholding basic morality that has held society together. If that’s necessary, so be it. Better to add another amendement than to let society slowly fall apart for the sake of the “it’s the states’ right” crowd.
ALso some states would not likely ban, Massachusetts for example. With an amendment they’d have to.
I like the way you think! Fudge and bourbon; great combo!
No, they don’t get it, not even close. Perhaps the candidates should include a ‘teaching moment’ in each debate. Too many voters don’t remember the details of their high school government classes.
No, they don’t get it, not even close. Perhaps the candidates should include a ‘teaching moment’ in each debate. Too many voters don’t remember the details of their high school government classes.
EVEN CATTLE KNOW NOT TO STRAY TOO FAR FROM THE WATERHOLE.
The power to ban homosexuality was not delegated to ANYONE because it was assumed people knew not to do that back in the founders’ days.
So then who does that power belong to? Why not the United States? It’s more efficient and ensures that every state has to follow through on it.
I don’t how, in a secular society, you could regulate or legislate morality.
The ban would only prohibit gay unions from being recognized, i.e. gays can’t get married. It would not prevent them from engaging in gay behavior. That we would have no way to enforce. That would be on the consciences of those who engage in it, and it’s their problem.
If by “they just don’t get it,” you’re referring to the Thompson camp, no, they don’t.
I think that would be blindingly obvious after what just happened in Iowa where a judge legalized gay marriage there until an injunction was put in place to halt it. And given time, that ruling will take hold if action isn’t taken. Frankly, I don’t like to wait until my car is sailing over the cliff before I turn the steering wheel.
Fred Thompson accepts federalism as blind dogma when frankly, there is a role for the federal government.
He’s as wrong as it gets on tort reform on the same grounds. Either that, or he just sides with his trial lawyer buddies and supports their continued raids on corporate America through the loopholes of venue shopping. Right now America’s corporations are spending more defending themselves from lawsuits than they are on Research & Development. And we’re supposed to remain atop the global economy that way, eh? Masters of efficiency, no doubt.
Another thing: There are two laws governing us here; the Constitution and the natural law, that is, morality and good and evil. The latter has precedence over the former. If, by the way it was written, the Constitution technically grants the US no power to stand up for morality (that is, ban gay unions), then we have to defy that when under desparate times, that is, when marriage is under attack. Our allegiance to morality should come before our allegiance to the Constitution.
HOWEVER, as I said, the Constitution never really did give the states or anyone the power to ban gay marriage because it was assumed that there would be no need to ban it because no one did it! Now it’s a different story, and someone needs that power. The US ought to get it, so EVERY state would have to repsect that ban.
So, why can’t Iowa solve this problem?
The same way Massachusetts can’t solve their problem—the liberals won’t let them.
A Constitutional amendment would ensure that the liberals in each state currently opposing bans and blocking conservatives from getting the bans back in action, would HAVE to submit to a ban on gay marriage.
Lots of negative Thompson stories out from Fox today, eh? They didn’t have a lot of credibility with me after the amnesty cheerleading, but they’re losing even that with their blatant pro-Giuliani, anti-everyone-else reporting. It’s a shame.
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.