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."
I’m willing to accept Fred’s stance on this, particularly in light of his views on federalism. I find them to be consistent.
I would insist on stronger working stating that our federal government would not recognize such “pairings” as the equivalence of marriage between a man and a woman for any reason, including the awarding of benefits.
No comment. It speaks for itself.
Thompson is ending up as a liability. I would be more upset if he wasn't bringing down Rudy McRomeny while he is at it. It's not like we have had any good option. Thomposn just moves to my won't vote for list.
I would be interested in hearing why Thompson voted for the DOMA since it defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
The DOMA which he voted for defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. All we wanted was an amendment level DOMA. So I would say the charge of flip-flopping applies to Fred on this one. Plus what he suggests is impossible. If states can Constitutionally define marriage any way they want to then the federal gov't will have to recognize those marriages and offer all the rights and benefits. How can a married couple, legal under the federal constitution, move from one state to another and be expected to act as though they were never married in their new state? No, the minimum requirement is that you allow states to offer only state recognized domestic partnerships that are not and never will be recognized by the federal government. That way when they move their federal status does not change.
Thompson has no more thought this out than he did the Campaign Finance Reform legislation. He isn't being true to the constitution at all. Nor will his solution be any kind of real solution because it is too contradictory and is a judicial disaster waiting to happen. In fact, we will be worse off with his proposal because the courts will be required to see homosexual marriage as a constitutional right.
It seems to me that Thompson's amendment would overturn all the state amendments since it would write into the federal constitution the right of legislators to offer homosexual marriage. As it is, legislators can't offer homosexual marriage in states where they have a marriage amendment in their state constitution unless the marriage amendment is repealed. A federal Amendment like Thompson's would trump the state amendments.
Frankly the earlier amendment was too weak because it would have written civil unions into the Constitution. It would have kept marriage as marriage between a man and a woman for federal purposes. No "married filing jointly" by homosexuals. No social security benefits for civil unions. Etc. That's good, but at what cost? Would it have been an obstacle to the state amendments now in place which also ban marriage by another name. Will it obstruct states that do not want to offer state recognition and benefits? No they don't have to offer the benefits but let's be real. If the liberals get power even briefly the benefits will be handed out. Then what? Take them back? This issue is an issue that doesn't really get taken back. Do the couples mail back their licenses? A loss is a permanent loss on an issue like this. With an amendment the state can at least have some stability by offering change only if it is really desired by its citizens enough to change their state constitution.
This is an issue where we must have unity. If we don't stop compromising we are going to lose the whole thing and once we start realizing just how far sweeping the effects will be, it will be too late.
This is a naive position and this is the telling paragraph...
This is obviously an attempt to thread the needle. His argument will be that just saying you support a federal marriage amendment as currently worded won’t pass so let’s come up with a common sense alternative. I can already see Mitt Romney’s advisors huddled about this plotting strategy on how to go after Thompson on this.
makes me feel like I wasted money on Thompson.
given the margins and number of states that have passed marriage amendments, the MEME "won't pass" is simply not credible. Thompson needs to course correct sooner than later.
actually they do.
The same way they prempted immigration laws which USED to be controled by individual states.
Thompson is dead wrong on this.
"That state legislators have the option, they still have the option of doing what they want to do about the subject as representatives of the people. What I do there is fix the problem because no states have affirmatively approved gay marriage.."Hasn't Massachussets' legislature passed gay marriage?
Mass. was imposed by a woman judge who copied the ABA’s model domestic relations code.
CT is the only state to create civil unions without a court order.
You may be surprised to know that I agree with you.
I think all these versions of a marriage amendment are anaethema.
What I think would be far more salutory in the long and short term is a raft of impeachments of activist judges for violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution.
I agree with Thompson that there are very few if any states where voters would choose to enact “gay marriage”. The question really comes down to how you control out of control judges. I suggest fear would work best.
Would Fred's amendment override all those state amendments? I don't see how it couldn't. Would Fred's amendment necessitate offering federal marriage benefits to Massachusetts marriages? I don't see how it wouldn't. Then how does the homosexual couple married in Massachusetts file their federal taxes if they move to, say, Louisiana? Are they single? What if they file an amended return for the previous year? Were they married? Did they get divorced? What if they lived in Massachusetts as married long enough to qualify for spousal social security benefits? The complications are endless.
What Fred proposes is not possible. At minimum you have to give it a different title so that states can differentiate and the federal government is not bogged down with trying to distinguish between all the different residences to decide if the filers are married or not -- and when. Your deceptive claim that there is a difference between Massachusetts and Vermont demonstrates that the only possible way homosexual marriage might be restricted to only the states is if you allow it by another name so that no one gets confused. There is no difference, and a court is likely to play on even that loophole, but it is the ONLY possibility that could work.
Lately I've decided I'm against even the weaker amendment becuase it just writes a lie into the constitution. We should work for an amendment that is strong, that covers homosexual marriage and its alliases, or just recognize the new fact that the United States government is now an enemy to Judeo-Christian values and plan accordingly.
That is a good place to start.
What is the difference between a Massachusetts gay marriage and a Vermont gay civil union?
as of right now, civil unions are not recognized across state lines. When vermont’s civil unions were created the homosexual advocate groups (lamda legal for one) immediatly launched full faith and credit cases.
They actually lost in TX, GA, CT and one other state that escapes me right now.
The objective of the homo advocates is to have zero difference between a homosexual “marriage” and a homosexual “civil union”. The goal as stated by their lawyers is to make ALL marriage be civil unions.
The legal significance right now is that civil unions are a statutory creation and thus have a narrow statutory construction. The argument goes that as a common law construct marriage gets a broad interpritation and protection and thus including marriage based on a recreational sex behavior will give that behavior broad forced acceptance in contrast.
Narrow construction means adoption, taxation, inheritance rules have to be analyzed one by one.
Broad construction means practically automatic forced acceptance.
In short the differences are all one wacko judge appart.
We have to also be careful that in an effort to fix one problem, we do not create another. By banning gay marriage but allowing civil unions, we are Constitutionalizing civil unions. So what about the state constitutions which now ban civil unions? Do those states start from square one? Won't the judges start overturning those amendments? Granted the judges couldn't demand civil unions either, but it would put civil unions one liberal sweep away from being law. Once they win, how do you reverse them? "You were a recognized union last year but now you are not"? Do states just have revolving unions where people don't know from year to year if they are legally a civil union or not? The nature of marriage (by whatever name) is that you can't just give it and take it back. Once we lose we've lost almost as permanently as if a judge decreed it.
Thank you for your message! IMHO the election will be about “family Values”. To me this means it will be anti-homosexuals agenda. This can win the congress and the White House. Can you imagine Clinton defending homos and their agenda in a national TV debate?
Thanks for the clarification.
It’s hard to keep up.
The 1996 DMA will be gone.
There will be executive orders regarding sexual preference politics.
The state department will be an even bigger bastion of homosexuals and leftists.
and
Mz Clintons ivory tower female homosexuals will resume using Camp David as their personal retreat.
“Sorry, Ockam’s legal razor applies here. The simplest amendment and the most sound legal principles involve simply defining marriage between one man and one woman. No loopholes. No room for doubt. Very simple.”
Well, what if someone says that in their relationship they ARE the woman? Would we have to add the word anatomical? And if they had a sex change, so they looked like a woman anatomically but were still 100% a man genetically, how would that play out? The amendment would have to be a bit more specific than all that. And personally, I believe our Constitution is the great document it is because it limits the powers of the government, not the powers of the people... An amendment of this sort would take the first steps towards a document that LIMITS the rights of the people. I agree with Fred - let the states handle this. It can do nothing but long term harm.
Dude, it is not my map, it is Dobson’s....
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.