Posted on 10/03/2007 6:09:04 AM PDT by pissant
The Republican Presidential hopeful Fred Thompson, who is considered "progressive" on gay rights, says he has met with social conservatives who will accept his position on gay marriage.
Mr Thompson is in favour of a constitutional amendment that bars judges from allowing gay marriages but that would allow state governments to legalise gay marriage.
"Everyone I have talked to in my meetings like this, the answer has been yes," said Mr Thompson.
But Mr Thompson accepted that social conservatives do have reservations: "I think they prefer their own wording. They are primarily concerned about marriage being a union between a man and a woman."
He added: "What I have done is fashion something that says judges can't do that any more."
"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."
Donald Downs of the University of Wisconsin told the United Press that the proposed amendment would be a "very strange" addition to the American Constitution.
A former actor, Mr Thomson represented Tennessee in the Senate from 1994 to 2003.
As well as his work on Law and Order, he is a well-know radio host in the US.
He has uttered some of the most memorable lines in modern movies, among them, "Sh*t, son, the Ruskies don't take a dump without having a plan," in The Hunt for Red October.
Thompson played similarly straight-talking characters in Days of Thunder and Die Hard 2: Die Harder
I find that also distorting for it is working against one self to do that kind of stuff it serves no purpose!
I am very careful to post what I know is realizable not tabloid!
A gay marriage nationalization decision, as unpopular as it would poll when handed down, wouldn’t be likely to be overturned by amendment. It would take at least four years of single-issue-voter elections to get the votes in the Senate for the amendment (67 needed, no more than 45 now in hand), and approval by the states is simply not going to happen. Only 13 have to reject to defeat it, and it will in at least 8 or 9 eastern seaboard states, and in at least 5 or 6 western states (liberal and/or libertarian alike).
It probably won’t even be seriously pushed. Every winning coalition in politics is an alliance of elite and popular interests. No elites can be in common cause with anti-gay-marriage dead-enders after opposition to gay marriage becomes regarded as unacceptable bigotry where the elite live and work, something that will take place almost immediately after the decision is handed down.
"Everyone I have talked to in my meetings like this, the answer has been yes," said Mr Thompson.
It gets worse by the day.
Take heed..Fred is NOT a conservative.
But, at the base, that is what Thompson's proposal is about. He isn't proposing limiting the definition of marriage, but allowing States to define it as they will. What he is proposing is limiting the jurisdiction of courts WRT lawsuits.
Polygamy is already defined out in DOMA by the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
That's the point. Does Thompson's proposed amendment include a strict definition of marriage from the DOMA? Can DOMA be repealed by the next legislature, under Thompson's amendment? I don't know, you don't know, nobody but Thompson knows. If it doesn't include similar language, but instead targets only what judges can or cannot rule on (i.e. the definition of marriage), it may leave the door open to other approaches and abuses of the institution.
However, we do know he has rejected the straight DOMA definition being adopted as an amendment.
You will have to wait to see the language and scope of the amendment before commenting on how it would work.
If I have to wait to comment, then Fredheads do as well. It's just another instance of his fans projecting what they want onto what they think he will do, without Fred actually saying anything concrete. Hey, I like the way he sizzles too; I just wanna see some steak to go with it.
However, if any marriage amendment passes muster, it won't be one that's convoluted. It will be one that simply defines marriage once and for all.
Nope I don’t read that into it but it would be nice to have an amendment that neuters the activist courts to the fullest extent possible without impinging on other aspects of the Constitution..
DOMA is already law. Thompson’s amendment would prevent the federal judiciary from striking it down with issues of Full Faith and Credit.
He hasn’t come out with anything that would change or repeal DOMA, so your question about polygamy is irrelevant.
His fans are not ‘projecting’ anything. Nearly everything I have written here is from his press releases or appearances. That’s not projection.
The only thing I add is what I consider common knowledge such as the gay couple who married in Massachusetts and then moved to Florida and sued to have their marriage recognized there. They lost but that is what is at issue, that at some time in some court, some judge is going to strike down DOMA using Full Faith arguments. And FDT has mentioned this is the vulnerability, so I expect he has been briefed or he has read on the Florida case.
So when I see FDT addressing similar issues I am of the mind that I am on the same page with him in some common knowledge. That’s not projection, that’s common sense.
When I see him speak or read of his opinions, I can see that he is reading from the same page or someone is briefing him on cuurent legal developments. That’s not projection, that’s merely reasonable inference.
What we have right now is that his team is planning an amendment to deny certain matters of jurisdiction to the federal judiciary. I leave it to he and his team of excellent jurists to hash out the details. But I know the intent, it will be to restrain the federal judiciary from imposing overreaching policy of law on the lives of Americans. At this point that is all we need to know. But I am confident that the amendment will be written to withstand the most extreme challenges the left can throw at it. That’s not projection, that is faith and confidence in a leader who has a track record of sincerity.
Lots of stuff would be nice to do. The question is how.
DOMA is already law. Thompson’s amendment would prevent the federal judiciary from striking it down with issues of Full Faith and Credit.
He hasn’t come out with anything that would change or repeal DOMA, so your question about polygamy is irrelevant.
As President, he couldn't if he wanted to. But Congress can repeal DOMA any time they like. You know, that legislative body controlled by Democrats? They don't need no steekin' judiciary. And without DOMA, what prevents "full faith and credit" from full implementation? It is in the Constitution, after all, and the definition of marriage ain't.
His fans are not ‘projecting’ anything. Nearly everything I have written here is from his press releases or appearances. That’s not projection.
Until he specifies how he plans to achieve his goals in other than vague outlines, you are projecting. You are assuming that what you would like to see implemented is how Fred would do it, because you seem to share a political philosophy. Maybe yes, maybe no. Witness how he went about "getting the corrupt influence of soft money out of politics". Love the philosophy behind that sentiment, but CFR was not exactly how I would desire a policy be crafted.
Four years ago, there were a bunch of people here on FR who were all a gaga about how Arnold Schwarzenegger was going to "Audit the System, from top to bottom" and "Blow up lock boxes" and be strong for business. Turns out he didn't mean what they thought he did. Before that, in 2000, Bush supporters didn't realize that "compassionate conservative" meant huge drug entitlements and "promoting family values" meant facilitating illegal immigration.
That's why, although I like much of the rhetoric Fred uses, I'd like to see more concrete policy examples before I buy it. Rhetoric is easy; we all love Mom and apple pie. Policy is hard, because it shows what you really intend to do. It's there, in black and white, for the public to see if it matches the rhetoric or not.
THe only issue out there that, in my opinion, is worthy of a constitutional amendment is a cradle-to-grave Right To Life amendment. OK, maybe there are some others, but I Don’t think this one is it. Maybe one to repeal the Full Faith and Credit clause itself?
All the prevented powers reserved to THE PEOPLE by the Constitution have been trampled by bought-and-paid-for, agenda-driven elitist asshats who think they should decide what's good for us all.
Lots of stuff would be nice to do? The question is how?
So I guess you figure Fred and his team are a bunch of talkers and not doers?
I mean what’s the point? You think he and his team don’t know how to get things done, is that it?
Fred is going around and giving short speeches to people that mostly don’t understand and mostly don’t want to hear about the intricacies of passing legislation.
He’s a good speaker, with a southern charm. He is not going to flash on a screen in front of these voters a bunch of pages detailing sections, definitions, provisions, conformances, references, etc. And furthermore he shouldn’t detail it.
So if you’re not buying FDT because he’s not giving you administrative details, then maybe you will buy Hillary’s details, or Romney’s details, etc.
I think you are a detractor because I have never seen any candidate in any election unfold a detailed plan of anything, not even Reagan. Candidates are expected to give enough information to determine their direction and intention. FDT has given this with his idea of an amendment to restrain the judiciary on certain matters. I don’t think it matters much if you buy it or not because most people will get behind his direction of reining in activist judges. That’s all they need to know on that issue. The rest who are not satisfied likely won’t be satisfied until they overdose on sophistry.
Like I said before if you want to work the issue, write his campaign and ask for a job. Good Luck.
I know — Sometimes I think we need an amendment that says the constitution says what it says, doesn’t say anything it doesn’t, and that it doesn’t have any emanations or penumbra. Sort of like the Athanasian Creed which was intended to correct a number of different heresies which developed over time:
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
etc...
FORGET FRED
And that was the last time I'll ever throw my vote away because the powers that be insist, "But he can win!" and 'you're an idiot it you don't vote for him'.
So far, yes, to a great extent. At least, that's what a long, hot summer of vamping indicated to me. He's been in for a month now, with no significant policy proposals, no debate appearances.
Fred is going around and giving short speeches to people that mostly don’t understand and mostly don’t want to hear about the intricacies of passing legislation.
Well, bully for them. Pardon me for actually wishing to educate myself beyond the 4th grade primer level.
He’s a good speaker, with a southern charm. He is not going to flash on a screen in front of these voters a bunch of pages detailing sections, definitions, provisions, conformances, references, etc. And furthermore he shouldn’t detail it.
Look, you are perfectly welcome to be satisfied with the cliff notes version, if that's what satisfies you. I like to know what I'm buying before it is in my house and it's too late to return it. It would be nice if Thompson would provide those pages of details for those of us who care, and you who prefer to be spoonfed pablum can just ignore them.
So if you’re not buying FDT because he’s not giving you administrative details, then maybe you will buy Hillary’s details, or Romney’s details, etc.
But you see, knowing the details is what lets me dissect them to see if their talk-talk matches their policy. Uncritical stump speech consumers are the ones which Hillary easily fools. They hear what they want to hear. Way back when, they all loved her HillaryCare 1.0. It was the publicizing of the details that defeated her.
As for Romney, he has recently put out a detailed policy guide that is on my homework list. I'll see if I like his specific approaches or not before I buy his stump speech either.
I think you are a detractor because I have never seen any candidate in any election unfold a detailed plan of anything, not even Reagan.
I have. It's one of the things that made me back McClintock in the CA gubernatorial race. He had a clearly defined policy path to fix the budget and other problems. But, he was defeated by hokum and glitter peddlers, whose idea of policy were 10 second sound bites to the adoring masses.
Mark
FuzzySnake.com
So you backed a loser and you’re bitter. Your guy lost because everybody else was bad.
That’s loser talk for sure.
Have a good losing life!
I’m sticking with winners.
When homosexuals pay the years of back marriage penalty taxes with fines and compounded interest, then and only then can we talk about allowing homosexual marriage. And then the answer is still no.
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.