Posted on 10/01/2007 8:23:57 PM PDT by Doofer
NEWTON, Iowa (AP) — Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson said he's met frequently with influential social conservatives who are willing to accept his position on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage even though it doesn't go quite as far as they would like.
Thompson favors a constitutional amendment that bars judges from legalizing gay marriage, but also leaves open the door for state legislatures to approve the practice. He said social and religious conservatives who would prefer an amendment that also bars legislatures from legalizing gay marriage can live with his view.
"Everyone I have talked to in my meetings like this, the answer has been yes," said Thompson. He conceded there are reservations.
"I think they prefer their own wording. They are primarily concerned about marriage being a union between a man and a woman," said Thompson. He said his solution strikes a balance.
Thompson didn't identify the conservative leaders he has met with.
"What I have done is fashion something that says judges can't do that any more," said Thompson. He said the practical effect of his proposal would be a ban on gay marriages.
"It'll stop the process in its tracks because it's all judge-made," said Thompson. "No state legislature accompanied by a governor's signature has gone down that road."
The former Tennessee senator opened a three-day campaign swing in Iowa, where precinct caucuses traditionally launch the nominating season. He mingled with evangelical conservatives over the weekend, and moved aggressively to ease worries that he doesn't favor a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. His alternative, Thompson said, "is a good, sound, conservative thing."
In making his case, Thompson said he was balancing the competing interests of preserving traditional marriage, while also calling for sharp limits on the role of the federal government. Amending the constitution, he argued, should only be done carefully and to the least extent possible.
"You've got to be awfully, awfully reticent to go in and do more than is absolutely necessary in terms of a constitutional amendment," said Thompson. "They understand that and appreciate that and I think they think I have a good approach. I can say they think they have a better approach."
Thompson said his plan "will work more in our favor than if we totally eliminate the concept of federalism."
He said his argument for a limited federal government helps balance conservatives' worries regarding gay marriage.
"They respect my position on federalism," said Thompson. "Good friends can differ on the details of any approach."
Thompson opened his campaign day mingling with about 200 people jammed into the Mid Town Cafe on the town square in Newton, a traditional stop on the presidential campaign trail for candidates of both parties. He then headed for Marshalltown to make his pitch to about 250 people jammed into a restaurant there.
Meeting with reporters, Thompson was asked about comments from rival John McCain about the U.S. being a Christian nation unlikely to vote for Muslim candidates. Thompson steered a middle course.
"Factually, the Judeo-Christian heritage of the United States is certainly factual," said Thompson. He warned that not all Muslims are radical and warned against stereotypes.
"There are a lot of Islamic individuals and citizens of this country who are not radical, who are good citizens," said Thompson. "I can't say I would vote for or against anybody in any category."
In before the first "wide stance" comment.
He’s not flip-flopping — he’s trying to have things both ways.
Stoopid idea. You can’t tie the hands of judges that way. The SC would through out the amendment as unworkable. If you say judges can’t interpret the law then you have violated the tripartite government.
Unless I'm mistaken Congress doesn't have the power to forbid state legislatures to legalize homosexual "marriages".I assume that Congress does,however,have the power to pass legislation that refuses to recognize the validity of such marriages when it comes to Federal issues.....filing joint federal tax returns,for example.
Thompson is WRONG on this issue. Christian Activist Mike Huckabee is RIGHT on this issue. This is possibly the defining issue of the 2008 election. Huckabee has lived the lifestyle of a Christian. This will translate into an electorial and a popular vote victory.
After living through the horrible turmoil when the ERA amendment was being pushed, I prefer Fred’s approach. That whole thing was horribly divisive, bitterly partisan.
If they tried to do a constitutional amendment, it would likely never get done. We need a different approach, and Fred’s is a good option.
I would prefer a more thoroughgoing approach, but I can understand this and live with it.
If you want to ban it entirely, it should be done at the state level. If it turns out that that can’t be done, then it’s also doubtful that a similar federal constitutional amendment could pass through the necessary approvals by 2/3 of the state legislatures.
We need to be practical. Marriage IS a commitment by a man and a woman, and no others need apply. It’s necessary to persuade people of that. Otherwise, every time the PC language police change the language to include some new meaning, you’d have to pass yet another constitutional amendment. It’s the culture that needs changing in that case, not the constitution.
Huckabee is anti war, pro amnesty and pro big government.
If people were unhappy with bush, huckabee will make them long for his presence still in the W.H.
Huckabee is no more acceptable a candidate for being right on social issues then Rudy is for being right on the war. There’s the little matter of the rest of the 75% coalition that is needed to win and both of them are unacceptable.
As for thompsn, he’s not G.W.B. on the issue. But you know what? G.W.B. wasn’t G.W.B. on this issue either since he’s done nothing significant to make it law. so, basically, I can be a fool and fall for a politician who says what I want to here and and does nothing in office to make it happen, or support a guy who has a good conservative record with some slight differences. hmm, let me think....yeah, I stick win Thompson.
“tripartite government” refers to the Executive (POTUS), the Legislative (Congress), and the Judicial (SCOTUS), not the States.
FRed isn’t suggesting that the SCOTUS can’t RULE on an amendment.
A wide or narrow straddling stance? LOL
You are right, it is very much undecided. But, Fred is a Federalist, and he seems to be saying, let the states figure this one out while trying to prevent judges from imposing their personal agendas.
Since no vote for homosexual marriage has met anything other than a stinging loss, and the courts are habitually activist in this arena, it seems like a reasonable approach.
I don’t think his acting career has anything to do with it.
He did say he could be supportive of the constitutional amendment if it were passed, he did say marriage is a man and a woman. I do not believe he is promoting gay marriage with that stance, but is rather opposed to it.
He just doesn’t like the idea of a constitutional amendment because of federalism. Limited is best. He is sticking with his principles.
Please fax me some of whatever you are smoking...
You’re not wrong. But, FRed IS saying that this decision should be left to the State Legislatures, not to a judge, nor to Congress.
The 10th Amendment states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I think that marriage is between a man and a woman only. Period.
Having said that I really do not like the idea of an amendment to ban it. Amendments to the Constitution should be clarify what the people’s rights are, not to tell them what rights they do not have. Adding an amendment that restricts what people can do, no matter how disgusting or immoral, is, I believe, a slippery slope and a very dangerous precedent.
I will now don my flame retardant suit.
Gay...Stance...? Reporters are slugs.
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.