Feds should not recognize ANY marriage!
Posted on 09/26/2007 5:49:53 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
Hi Spiff,Do you have link”s for this.”Fred Thompson is reported to have fought to REMOVE the Ronald Reagan Pro-Life plank from the GOP Platform.”
Feds should not recognize ANY marriage!
Google it. It is reported (as I said) that he lobbied against the pro-life plank. I think it would be an excellent question to ask him during a debate just to be sure. I've seen it reported in several places on the Internet. Chuck Baldwin is one of the sources. I'm looking for more verification, but the reports are out there along with reports that he ran as a pro-choice candidate both times he ran for Senate. That, and his core sponsorship of CFR legislation, would explain why, as far as I know, no pro-life groups have endorsed him.
“Interesting...so, are you a Republican? Because, if you’re not a Republican then maybe you should butt out of the REPUBLICAN Primary.”
You mean if he is not a conservative that he does not belong here, because this is not a Republican web site.
That is one reason that Romney gets so little traction here, this is a conservative web site.
Do these people think you just go down to Wal-Mart and buy a amendment to the Constitution? Even getting it acted on takes a while then requires ratification by the states would take years if you can get enough states to sign it...
Very interesting.
No. Not without the Evangelical Right, he can't.
My thoughts entirely.
It is impossible to win without those positions, as without them one is without the Religious Right and cannot win.
You’ve reduced yourself to spreading rumors about Fred in an effort to smear him...all to support the candidate who lied about Ronald Reagan’s abortion record.
When is Willard going to apologize for lying about Ronald Reagan’s pro-life beliefs?
####this issue isn’t about the church anyway! it’s about the federal gov’t recognizing or not recognizing gay marriage. i guess i just don’t understand. maybe because no one can explain it in a cohesive manner.####
Here’s how I would explain it. You didn’t see conservatives trying to pass constitutional amendments to define marriage as being between one man and one woman fifty years ago. Or a hundred years ago. Or twenty years ago.
Why not? Because there was no judicial activism on those issues back then. This is an issue that properly SHOULD be left to the legislatures and/or the voters of each state. On that, the libertarians are correct. However, once judicial imperialism begins, it must be stopped somehow. And just as we don’t like to go to war, but sometimes have to, we sometimes have to amend the constitution, either the federal one or our individual state one.
Here in Tennessee, we amended our state constitution last year to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. We shouldn’t have had to do that. Kingu made a valid point when he said the constitution shouldn’t be for legislating. But once judges start legislating from the bench, what is the alternative?
These FMAs are defensive in nature, not offensive. It wasn’t conservatives who decided to make same-sex “marriage” a constitutional issue. It was liberals. It’s the same with abortion. It was the left that made this an issue. It’s the left that’s threatening to use the imperial federal judiciary to impose the same-sex “marriage” agenda nationwide. All we’re trying to do is constitutionally defend ourselves.
I find it bizarre that there are libertarians who would rather see five federal judges strip every state in the union of its power to define marriage, than to amend the constitution properly to protect traditional marriage, on the amazing grounds that such an amendment would “trample on states’ rights”.
Imagine if the federal courts were about to impose a new federal property tax on us, something they have no constitutional authority to do. Suppose conservatives tried to amend the constitution to stop this, but libertarians blocked the amendment on the grounds that such an amendment “would federalize property tax law”. Yet the result of not passing the amendment would be that the federal courts would get away with not only federalizing tax law, but actually imposing such a tax on us.
That’s the situation we’re in now on same-sex “marriage”. Unless we pass an FMA, the federal courts will eventually force same-sex “marriage” on the states. So the libertarian argument is that they’d rather have the feds impose an unpopular policy on the states via judicial fiat than amend the constitution to stop it, on the grounds that such an amendment would federalize a traditional state issue.
Here’s a question for you: what Constitutional role does the President play in amendment of the Constitution?
Here's Brody's article on Fred wanting to ditch the platform in 96 as a way to quell party infighting:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1864165/posts
It seems misguided to me, but his basic point was that all of the energy was being directed inward instead of at trying to win the election.
Spiff is clever to point this out, especially when he supports Mitt Romney, a candidate that is on video trying to out-choice a pro-choice activist candidate for governor.
None of them will vote for Hillary, so the only danger would be if they stay home en masse.....that is extremely unlikely in Fred v Hillary election. They will vote for Fred.
You point out the solution while at the same time ignoring it. The solution /isn't/ turning the Constitution into a dictionary, but stopping the judicial activism. That will /only/ occur by bringing more constructionist judges to the Supreme Court to get the judicial back on track. Sure, we can pass all the laws we want, even pass constitutional amendments, but as was pointed out before, a judge ten years from now can interpret it as meaning that the federal government is forbidden from recognizing any marriage at all. The slap down has to come from high court, or the miracle of actually getting enough conservatives into Congress to hammer the activist judges and remove them from the bench. Not simply give up the war.
Pardon me? The Christian right is not a minority. 40m strong in the last election, and that was a poor turnout.
Why is it the business of the Federal Government? The Feds don't even have a nationwide law against murder...the federal law on murder only applies to federal lands.
Such an amendment is clearly contrary to the intent of the constitution...as surely as the Roe v Wade interpretation of "privacy" is.
90% of the evangelical right will vote for Fred Thompson because he is vastly better on the social issues than any democrat candidate.
Fred Thompson did NOT run as a pro-choice candidate, ever. That has been debunked repeatedly.
Of course, the lies originated with Romney supporters. His campaign is usually the one spreading the muck.
“Do not be deceived:
Today, the Evangelicals for Mitt operation has spent its time attacking conservative Republican presidential candidates, most recently former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and unannounced candidate, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson.
Thompson, who has made it clear that he does not support Roe v. Wade, and who was certified as pro-life by the National Right to Life Committee back in 1994, has continued to state that he is pro-life. But the Evangelicals for Mitt, using research provided by the Romney campaign, has been putting out information on its blog that Thompson, as well as other Republican Senate candidates, were not.
The Romney campaign has targeted Thompson as a serious threat to its ongoing political survival. Recent polls that have just begun including Thompson in surveys show him running ahead of Romney in Iowa, without his having spent a dime.
National Right to Life says Thompson has been reliably pro-life and his voting record sustains that view.
- Bill Hobbs, Elephant Biz, March 26, 2007
http://www.elephantbiz.com/2007/03/independent_blog_has_ties_to_r.html";
*****
This morning, I cited reports being promoted by the pro-Romney blog Evangelicals for Mitt suggesting that Fred Thompson ran his two campaigns for Senate in Tennessee as a pro-choicer. Not so, National Right to Life executive co-director Darla St. Martin just told me.
St. Martin said that she went down to Tennessee in 1994 to speak with Thompson personally when he first ran for Senate, and that she determined he was against abortion.
“I interviewed him and on all of the questions I asked him, he opposed abortion,” St. Martin said. She told me that the group went on to support him in that election, and his record reinforced for her that their determination was correct.
“He has a consistent voting record that is pro-life,” she said.
On the NRLC website, they archive their congressional ratings back to 1997, so they include six of his eight years in the Senate. Thompson took the pro-life position on every vote he cast on the abortion issue. The only reason he didn’t have a 100% rating is that, as Jim pointed out, the ratings also include votes on campaign finance reform, which he supported.
I specifically pressed her on the 1994 National Review story that read: “On abortion, both Thompson and Cooper are pro-choice. But Thompson favors parental notification, Cooper voted against it.” I also asked her about the 1996 AP story mentioning Thompson’s opposition to a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
St. Martin said she was skeptical of such media reports, because they can be wrong as was her experience with stories in 2000 that George W. Bush had been pro-choice. She reiterated the fact that she knows Thompson opposed abortion because of her conversation with him, and that was reinforced by his subsequent voting record.
That's the issue, they're NOT conservatives. They're social crusaders. They're all for big government when it suits their agenda...opposed when it doesn't.
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.