Thompson Defends Gay Marriage Stance

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.

"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."

States that have DOMA in place

Folks, please take the time to review this link at the state level conservatives have WON BIG TIME.

According to domawatch.org:

* Only 5 states have neither a statute nor a constitutional provision prohibiting same-sex "marriage": Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island. * Massachusetts is the only state that has legalized same-sex "marriage," as a result of the 2003 Goodridge ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court. * New York's high court, the Court of Appeals, ruled in 2006 in Hernandez v. Robles that despite the lack of an explicit definition of marriage in New York, only the union of a man and a woman is a legal marriage, and this limitation is constitutional.

ACTIVIST JUDGES are the only thing that can mess these laws up. There has got to be some way to stop the meddling and the snuffing out of states rights.... FRED IS RIGHT!!!

Your post is interesting and has got me to thinking. Our Constitution allows for the legislative and executive branches to check each others powers, i.e. with the executive veto and the legislative override. But there really is no similar stipulation when it comes to decisions by the judiciary.

Now I’m just throwing this out there (and please keep in mind that I am on some pretty strong pain killers thanks to my recent back surgery) but what would you think about allowing for a legislative ‘override’ of a judicial decision to overturn a law? I know that having something like this in place could get a little dicey, but it really is the only feasible solution I can think of to reeling in activist judges outside of imposing some sort of mandatory retirement.

I’d be interested in hearing what you think.

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.

Well, congress can withdraw any jurisdiction from the federal courts anytime it wants. So the Constitution permits significant limitations on judges.

But more important is that Judges everywhere have already violated, abused, spit-on, and torn up the notion of tripartatite government when they started acting like unelected legislators. They were not "interpreting" the constitution in Roe, or Lawrence. They were making it up out of whole cloth.

The judiciary is completely out of control at virtually all levels and needs to be reigned in. My only objection to FT's proposal is that the issues it covers are not nearly broad enough.

I heard a new term for ‘marriage’ on the morning news. A euphemism for living with just about anything, breathing or not. Can’t remember the exact wordage, but it was something like, ‘contemporary marriage’. Only cheerier and said with a straight face. Even a dope could tell it was another MSM con job. Gay marriage or sleeping with a fence post will be the big lie, said often enough that we no longer think it’s cockeyed or blasphemous. They slipped this in with a plethora of Deval Patrick’s schemes to raise billions by taxing us out of existence and installing casinos on every street corner. (MA. of course)

"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.

They?

Has Fred actually described his stance on the issue or has he only described his stance on the wording of an amendment that strikes a balance between social conservatives and whatever you want to call the side that Fred is on. The question is does Fred Thompson believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman?

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.

I agree. One or two tiny leftist states might legalize gay marriage. So what? One of the prices we would pay for federalism. I'll tell you one thing, no large state would do it, including California, which might be leftist in everything else but with its large block of Spanish Christians isn't about to sanctify fudge-unions.

"He’s not flip-flopping — he’s trying to have things both ways."

Not at all. His response is precisely in-synch with his (and my) views on "federalism". The states "do" have more power over personal behavior than the Feds. The continuing problem has been the constant usurpation of state power by the Feds, both in the Congress AND in the courts.

But it doesn't "really" need a constitutional amsndment to accomplish. Congress already has the power, under the Constitution, to restrict the field of authority of the Courts.

According to another article linked to here today, the 2nd part of his Amendment would basically say that the federal government would tie the hands of state judges on how they can rule in the debate.

How can someone that professes States Rights defend this position? We all hate judicial activism, but you can't have the federal government dictating how state judges rule on state issues. This is a flip flop.

Maybe I am reading it wrong, but in the other article (which I will try and find again if requested) he clearly states that his Amendment would take this issue away from state judges.

He just doesn’t like the idea of a constitutional amendment because of federalism.

You keep saying he doesn't like the idea of a constitutional amendment, but this story says he is actually proposing a new, different 2 part amendment. As far as federalism, the 2nd part of this "new" amendment would actually BAR State judges from ruling on any state marriage laws. That goes directly against federalism, he is trying to impose federal will onto state judiciary.

BTW... I do not agree 100% with the original FMA because of the same reasons Fred originally stated, yet now he is going in the totally opposite direction.

On Free Republic Federalism is becoming FREDeralism and that seems to be OK by some here.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071001/NEWS09/710010334/-1/NEWS04 Link to original article.

Actually, m'dear, you're the one who is ignorant. Fred's positon is called "federalism". Surely you've heard of it.

Admittedly, it took quite a beating under Lincoln, but vestiges of it still remain. Those few have been being continuously reduced by both the Congress and the Courts.

Fred simply wants to undo that.

He's correct---and YOU are wrong.

Congress has the constitutional power to deny jurisdiction of the Federal Courts over any issue it wants.

According to the original article (linked below), he wants to have the power to deny jurisdiction to STATE judges as well. Doesn’t that go against his State Rights claim?

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071001/NEWS09/710010334/-1/NEWS04

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.

Yep. What I find amazing is that so many who want to keep the Federal Government at bay in so many areas, are POd at Fred for not wanting to have the Feds exert pressure for their own pet peeves. They say he wants it both ways, when they seem to be the ones with that particular desire.

The way I look at it is either you want the Feds to be put in their place and have the States control their own affairs, which puts a lot more power in the hands of the People, or you want the Feds to hold sway. If you want the Feds to hold sway for things near and dear to you, you are part of the slippery slope that keeps giving the Feds more and more power over us.

Except that most state legilators and governors won’t pass such a law because the people don’t want it. The courts are how such issues get brought up and thrust on the people through ajudication in the first place.

This is what Thompson is campaiging against. If voters want to create gay marraige for their state, they could but I don’t think we’d see it happen in very many. If at all.

When a judge “throws out” a law he calls “unconstitutional” he is indeed asking for the legislature to re-write the law with proper wording etc for compliance.
But the legislature exists to make law, and the judicial exists to interpret the law.
With any law however, there is always a built in litigation option that anyone can challenge.
I think people have put too much stock in what a judge rules as the ultimate ending. But it is not. Any judges ruling can be challenged if you have enough money and lawyers on your side. Unfortunately there are too many lawyers involved in our legislatures so they seem to be somewhat intimidated by judicial rulings, more so than the general public. We tend to dispise lawyers and judges even though we hold a degree of respect for them. That is until a judge trys to force someones right above and beyond the general welfare of the majority.

Anytime anyone disagrees with a law, a court is always involved. People cannot accept compromise as in win a few, lose a few. it is all or nothing now

"You can’t tie the hands of judges that way"

Nonsense. Judges ane NOT an imperium, despite recent history. They are a co-equal branch of the government charged w/ interpreting the existing laws--noy writing new laws. Only legislatures can write new laws.

Creating a new category of marriage is writing a new law. Judges don't have that authority and state courts that have assumed that authority are in violation if the US Constitution, or should be.

Until the 14th Amendment your argument would have been true, but since the 14th, some limitations on government have been extended to the States as well as the federal government. State courts are as obligated to respect Constitutional limitations on gevernment authority as the federal government. I believe that a constitutional amendment as described can without question bind state courts.

As a practical matter, 21st Century federalism has to recognize the existence of all the existing Amendments to the Constitution, including those that limit the operation of federalist principles, like the one that deprived the States of their right to select Senators as they wish.

Longer term, all these larger issues of federalism ought to be open to consideration.

I am explaining my question in the wrong way I guess. I am questioning if changing the Constitution via an Amendment that allows the Federal government to dictate to a State judge on one issue (in this case gay marriage) goes against the so called principle of Federalism.

I realize it can be done, and I realize there is precedence in the 14th Amendment - but is it right?

I think the state Judges overstep their bounds all the time, and I don't like it, but doesn't this dictate more power to the feds? If we really believe in states rights, shouldn't we allow the State legislature decide if they want to bind their own state judges?

As I said before, tongue and cheek, Federalism is fast becoming FREDeralism.

I am actually against a FMA because of many reasons even though I believe 100% that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, so I actually agreed with Fred in the beginning, and I am not sure I have too much of a problem with the first part of his proposed Amendment, it is just the 2nd part about the state judges that I am having a big problem with. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is right.

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.