In before the first "wide stance" comment.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!!
If the focus of the amendment is on protecting the power of state legislatures from usurpation by judges or by other states, I think a lot of legislatures would go along with it. If the focus is limiting what states can do, more legislatures would balk.
Doubletalk...he has “Front Runner” written all over him.
Note the tagline ...
Even Californians passed prop 22, the defensive of marriage law. Surely, most states can do the same. I know Nevada has it in their constitution. It came about from the initiative process. This type of initiative was what Bush rode on in his last election. Big reason for his victory.
Instead of Dobson whining, he should go to work getting initiatives on the ballots on as many states as possible that are the likes of prop 22.
Have no idea where this thing is going to go for FDT. However, FDT is the real conservative’s choice.
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)
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?