Posted on 10/01/2007 8:23:57 PM PDT by Doofer
“I’m wondering how much of Fred’s ambivalence about gay marriage is due to his background as an actor. I suppose there are actors who are vigorously and vocally opposed to gay marriage, but I don’t know any.”
Thompson was a 42 year old man by the time he stepped in front of a Hollywood camera, I don’t think that it influenced his views on homosexuality, and I sure don’t see him as ambivalent on gay marriage, he is trying to block it with a constitutional amendment.
Wikipedia
“Ragghianti’s case would garner national attention and became the subject of a book, Marie, written by Peter Maas published in 1983. The film rights for the book were purchased by director Roger Donaldson, who, after travelling to Nashville to speak with the people involved with the original case, asked Thompson if he wanted to play himself in the movie; Thompson agreed. The resulting film, Marie, was Thompson’s first acting role and was released in 1985.”
You signed up today to tout which candidate? Let me guess, his initials are R.P., am I right?
“You signed up today to tout which candidate? Let me guess, his initials are R.P., am I right?”
Yep every noob is a ron paul nutso.
Not Ron Paul.
He is a Romney troll that signed up to attack Fred.
Why is this hitting the news now?
I just googled and found a video of Fred explaining this almost a month ago.
Has his position changed since then?
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/227689.aspx
Are you really as ignorant of our system of government as you appear?
First, the Supreme Court cannot declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Second, our tri-partite form of government does not require the courts to "interpret" laws - it requires them to apply them. It is the tendency of the courts to try to "interpret" the laws to mean what ever they think the law should mean that led to Roe v. Wade and the imposition of gay marriage in Mass.
Surely you know that the Constitution allows Congress to deny the courts jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of a law, don't you?
Oh come on, Fred is parsing words on something that is black and white, he is being too clever by half.
And I like Fred, he just needs to stand up and not muddle around so much, he could take a lesson from RP on that.
“The SC would through out the amendment as unworkable.”
The SC can’t “through out” amendments to the constitution...
So, Thompson's proposal really does nothing.
Fred’s position is the right one.
Take the matter away from the courts, away from Congress, and give back to the states and the people respectively.
Thompson Defends Gay Marriage Stance
The way this is worded would lead most to think Fred was for Gay marriage.
2DV. Nice Paranoia showing. Now let's get em cause he is attacking Fred! Another liberal nutjob agaist Fred the only true conservative with frederalistic tendency's. Almost as bad as them there girliani supporters but not quite on the scale of the paulistinians.
grrr fredhead angry.
When Islam takes over, there won't be a choice about it.
Congress has the constitutional power to deny jurisdiction of the Federal Courts over any issue it wants. So, it seems that Congress does indeed have the power to tie the hands of the Judiciary in precisely this way and has had since the Constitution was adopted.
Check it out if you can find a copy of the Constitution. They might have a copy in your local library.
The way this is worded would lead most to think Fred was for Gay marriage.
It's an Associated Press headline after all...
I agree with him on this, but unfortunately he’s sunk, completely. The Evangelical southerner’s won’t go for it. He might as well pack it in. I’m surprised nobody saw this coming.
With previous knowledge of F.D.Thompson’s focus on Federalist interests, I believe a word has been left out of this discussion as I read it. That word is “Federal” in front of the word “Judges”.
Fred Thompson I believe is destined, should he be elected to the Presidency to focus much on States Rights, and attempt to scale back the intrusiveness of the Fed.
This is the impression I/we thus far have gained of the man. We remain uncomitted to any single candidate at this time, however (FWIW) The two most interesting to us at this point in the race are Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson.
vaudine
If you have to pass ONE Federal Constitutional Amendment ANYWAY because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause... WHY go to the hassle of trying to pass 50 STATE Amendments FIRST?
WHY?
Same for Abortion !
WHY 102 Amendments when 2 will do the same CLEARER, BETTER and without the risk that SOME states would actually Pass Amendments to ENSHRINE Homosexuality and Abortion as God Defiling rights????
WHY???
There two and ONLY TWO possible reasons:
IGNORANCE or INTENTION !
Fred is either completely totally utterly IGNORANT about the two greatest moral threats in our history... or he is INTENTIONALLY seeking to DECEIVE us all.
Pick yer poison... but they are BOTH deadly Poisons!!
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.