Posted on 10/01/2007 8:23:57 PM PDT by Doofer
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.