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
BS. If the founders had known that abortion would rear its ugly head, they would have banned it. If you don’t understand that a unborn child is a human being, than you can make your weak argument.
And this notion that it’s consistent with federalism to have constitutional amendments for term limits, for balanced budgets and for disallowing the “full faith and credit” clause, but that it is against federalism for an amendment to protect the unborn is ridiculous.
It doesn't affect me either way so I personally couldn't care less how homosexuals envision life, liberty and happiness or how the government regulates it.
But under this arrangement wouldn't the Federal government have to recognize the marriage regardless of where the people reside?
Do you read their articles often?
I’m a little surprised you would post this.
I am a FredHead and agree with Fred. If some states want gays to marry, let them. Just firewall the perversion off from the rest of the country.
You can’t legislate stupidity and shouldn’t use the Constitution to do it either.
That's just one of the questions that Fred needs to answer. There is no way that we can allow the Federal government to recognize these sexual pairings as being the equivalent of marriage.
That’s nice, darlin.
Considering that the left uses the interstate commerce clause to justify any and all federal involvement in any and all issues - yes, you are right.
But I believe they would use the “incorporation” Mack truck hole instead of the “interstate commerce” Mack truck hole.
Here’s the most egregious (and maybe the first) use of the interstate commerce clause. During FDR’s appointed supreme court, they stated that a farmer growing his own wheat for his OWN CONSUMPTION was subject to interstate commerce regulation, because if he wasn’t growing it for himself, he’d have to engage in interstate commerce to purchase it.
What sucks is the short-sightedness of the conservatives - especially folks like Dobson (whom I respect as well).
Federalism and limited government WILL “impose” morality on people,
simply because the alleviation of the consequences for immoral behavior is removed from the taxpayer and put back on the individual choosing the behavior.
This is why our Constitution “worked” for so long. Moral behavior is simply rational behavior when you have to experience the consequences for immoral behavior.
I guess I didn't read those. Thanks for clearing it up.
Wow! I can’t for the life of me figure out how giving (if you’ll excuse the pun) back door creedence to a moral perversion has been twisted around to be called a conservative position by some. Either my or their logic has gotten severly twisted. I don’t think it’s mine.
Honestly, I can’t think of one state that where voters would support gay marriage. But, I’d rather see people make the call than out of control activist judges.
So you can channel the founders now? I doubt it. Abortion was as state issue then and should be now. There would be fewer.
Sounds like since he’s not publicly proclaiming how terrible homosexual ‘marriage’ is, they think he’s ‘progressive’. They’re not listening that closely to what he’s truly saying, but, hey, if it means that they might actually VOTE for him, that would be fine by me! That’s fewer votes for Her Heinous!
What are the reasons the federal government has for considering marriage in the first place? Primarily, for tax filing and payment of income taxes.
Get rid of income taxes and the result will be much less pressure for any federal involvement in the “marriage” issue to begin with.
I agree that it is primarily a state level issue and that judges should not be allowed to find that states must recognize such a union from another state. We know it is bound to happen that the some unelected judge will find the FFC clause to require other states to recognize this “gay” marriage absurdity.
The only way to effectively firewall the perversion is through a Constitutional amendment preventing a judge from applying FFC to such a union.
I believe amending the Constitution is extreme, but queer circumstances sometimes require queer measures.
I know. Fred’s position is not my position, but it is not “progressive”, at least in the liberal interpretation of that misused term.
Take away our subsidy for illegitimacy (i.e. welfare) and guess what? There will be fewer children born out of wedlock. And so on.
You don't think that the Founders knew what abortion was? It has been practiced since there were people on the planet. They didn't even ban slavery, though many were virulently opposed to it, because that was a political compromise to get the Southern colonies to come on board this new nation.
Show me the abortion records from 1887, and we’ll look it over. The doctors of the day could barely remove a bullet without killing you.
Some leftists fall under the “application of childish emotion to complex problems - solutions are ‘nice’ or ‘mean’”
and others understand human incentive and economics which stems from it,
and choose to use the ignorance of the first group to gain power.
In other words, you and I know and understand your assertion and the obvious solution - but some see it as “mean”, and others see social welfare as a means to power.
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.