Replies

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.

I appreciate the clarity but this is a deal breaker for me. I was willing to consider him even though he didn't support the marriage amendment, mainly becuase I think the marriage amendment is weak. Now he proposes a weaker one? No! I won't write the right to homosexual marriage into the Constiution as his proposal will do. What he proposes will place the Constitution in contradiction with itself. The minimum we must do in order to have clarity is to offer gay marriage by another name. Really that was too weak. But Thomoson's idea can't handle the judicial problem. The courts will still say that we can't give more to one marriage than to the other. If federal benefits are included then the full faith and credit clause applies and Thompson's amendment is meaningless.

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.

One more thing...

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marriage in states where they have a marriage amendment in their state constitution unless the marriage amendment is repealed.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.