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."
“Im wondering how much of Freds 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 dont 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.