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
If this really is his position he has lost me. I was leaning towards voting for him in the primary. I can not if this is true. It’s a deal breaker with me. This would eventually force gay marriage on the entire nation.
btt
bump
The inevitable slide into liberal oblivion.
???PinkNews??
Good grief, this is one of the worst-written little posts I’ve seen. And it’s a huge reach to use it against the Senator.
Strategically he needs to get past this issue and he does not see (must be the idiot insider staffers) how this is crippling his own surge in support.
Kerryesque nuances worth of a used car salesman will not fly in the post 1970 era.
His “proposal” has been examined, measured, and found wanting.
I STRONGLY suspect this boneheaded, absurd, and disingenous proposal is why the MSM has alread left the Thompson story in the dust and gone back to the Guiliani Coronation.
(in a positive note: he did explicitly come out supporting Rush)
But that is neither here nor there in this election. What I need to know now is if Fred, Rudy, Mitt, Duncan and the rest are being honest about what they want to do as President, or are they just another slickly packaged PR fraud like Arnold. The only way to do that is to look at what they are proposing at a deeper level than their puffball interview sound bites and compare that to what they have done in the past. If the PR package is all they ever release, then I must remain heavily skeptical that they are who they say they are or have a plan to do what they say they will do.
Right now, for me, the score stands this way:
Rudy: What he says he supports doesn't match what I support for the most part. Reject.
McCain: CFR. Gang of 14. More loyalty to the Senate than to the Constitution. Reject.
Mitt: Like his stand on the majority of issues. Not afraid to let me know the details of his policies. Not sure if I can trust him to implement them. Maybe, hold off to read more and watch.
Fred: Like his stated philosophy. Dislike his vagueness on the policy questions and his Senate record. Nothing to really judge his agenda by yet. Maybe, hold off to see how he handles debate and if he fleshes out his platform with concrete policy.
Hunter: Like his rock ribbed conservatism. Agenda seems limited to a couple of issues. Lack of traction is a strong indicator of inability to exercise Presidential class leadership. Maybe, could support him if he won the primary, but not really excited by him.
Paul: Great candidate for a Federal judgeship. Scary candidate for President in a world with missiles, terrorists, and nukes. Reject.
So, there you have it. I want to like Mitt, and I want to like Fred, but I have an unease about both of them for different reasons. I'm sure that most here would disagree with me on some reasoning and agree on others. I am willing to be convinced on most of the points, if people have a cogent argument, but I won't be shifted by the half-baked digs and slurs that seem to be the majority of "candidate discussions" lately.
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.