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
Fred's proposal is that NO State would have to accept the 'marriage' of homosexuals from another State that had legalized it. He thinks that since marriage laws are regulated by States, that the citizens in those States should be the ones voting on those laws, but that they shouldn't have to be affected by those passed by other States. Since the Full Faith and Credit Clause can be changed by a vote of Congress, rather than having to go through an entire amendment process, that could be put into effect immediately. Fred also wants to bar Federal Judges from messing with the decisions of a States' citizens on the matter.
So if a majority of the voters of New York State decided to allow homosexual 'marriage', and the voters of Pennsylvania did not, the Commonwealth of PA wouldn't have to recognize the 'marriage' of homosexuals from NY.
Fred Thompson supports states allowing sexual perversion since he knocked up a girl at 16 and married a second wife half his age. He should know.
Yes, but for federal purposes, such as taxes, SS benefits, etc, you better believe that it makes a difference whether or not the Federal Gov’t recognizes those state’s “marriages”.
Folks knew about abortions, they just didn't talk about them. Everyone knew that what they were doing was wrong, they just justified it, as they do today.
oops. 1787
Thanks RKV,
You’ve correctly made the case for Federalism. It is a philosophy that will require people to take more personal accountability for their local governments and local societies. Thompson has been with few exceptions remarkably consistent on this point and it is good to see that he remains consistent on Federalism despite the opportunity to pander to people who should know better.
If the federal government can dictate isses that are not in the constitution, then they can dictate all sorts of other reprehensible policies to the states.. this is essentially the problem we have today.
Ok, let’s get it straight on what Fred’s amendment is about.
It’s about ‘Full Faith and Credit’ issues of the federal judiciary imposing its rulings of one state on every other state.
Fred Thompson’s proposal is to muzzle judges and only judges in this arena, but not state legislatures. The reason he will not restrict state legislatures is because they can be voted out whereas federal judges cannot be.
I will find the video where he clarifies his position.
Here it is:
http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/09/political-video-of-the-day-fred-1.html
You’re welcome.
Fred Thompson has correctly identified the real problem area, the overreach of the federal judiciary. His formidable legal and constitutional background gave him the insight to draft an amendment that restricts jurisdiction of federal judges. This is entirely constitutional as it lifts a provision of power for Congress over the federal judiciary to the level of amendment. It curtails federal judges from abusing the Full Faith clause of the Constitution.
When you think for a moment what are the problem issues of the last decades, abortion, banning school prayer, gay marriage, etc., they all have one root in common; an overreach by the federal government. Thompson’s core philosophy is to get back to the founding principles that are espoused in federalism. He first asks the question “Is this the business of government? Is this something the federal government should be involved in?”. This is opposite the mantra of recent Presidents after Reagan where they claimed “Government has a role to play in everything”.
The votes for banning gay marriage are not there and will not be there. Many of those that voted for DOMA feel an amendment is not necessary. So Thompson’s amendment draft is brilliant because it effectively defangs the left and the gay agenda including the ACLU, it fights the battle in a broader more appealing arena. Americans are fed up with federal government sticking its nose into every aspect of their lives. Thompson’s amendment addresses this frustration.
It’s analogous to fighting a battle with a risky full frontal assault versus a siege where we surround the enemy and starve them into submission. Dobson wants a frontal assault, Thompson wants a siege.
Well said. When abortion defined as murder, is when it should be illegal. Then the the next logical step would to ban birth control.
This is another issue that I prefer to watch from the sidelines and allow society to decide the outcome.
And a slew of other things. Inheritance laws, social security benefits, Medicaid, welfare status, etc., etc. The trouble lies in the fact that most have lost sight of what the legal benefits to married couples was supposed to achieve: helping to create a stable environment for raising families in. Thus, tax codes that favor single income heads of household over dual income households, SS benefits that accrue to spouses and minor children and the like.
Instead, people think these days that marriage is about the two married people, and not the creation of a new family unit as was understood for past generations. Homosexuals who desire "marriage" rarely are in it to form a new, generational family. What they are really desirous of is the social imprimatur on their personal relationship. They seek to force this acceptance by law, because they cannot hope to gain it by custom. The relationship is of a lesser sort than a true traditional marriage no matter what the legal dressing, because it cannot achieve the true purpose of a traditional marriage.
The true purpose of marriage is simple. It is to give social acceptance and order to sexual unions that produce children. It does so by making a public contract between a man and a woman that they accept the responsibility to raise and nurture those children. By doing so, they contribute back to society a functioning family, which is the most basic unit of society. Homosexual unions cannot do this, and so will always be inherently lesser.
http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/abortl.htm
And recognize that abortion was always legal to save a life. It is ‘Abortion-on-Demand’ that is at issue, not abortion per se.
Repeat:
Abortion to save a life
versus
Abortion-on-Demand.
File it.
True, that.
Shame on you for posting this swill.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
But marriage is an institution that is the very basis of civilization, and it must be a union of one man and one woman.
Homosexual couples may enter into any agreement they wish, but marriage between two (or more) people of the same sex, of multiple people of any sex, or between humans and animals is out of the question.
This is not at the top of my agenda, and this in itself would not stop me from voting for Thompson, but I do not agree that same-sex marriage should be sanctioned by law.
If I am still on it, please take me off the Duncan Hunter ping list. I no longer want any association with his supporters.
Let me ask a hypothetical.
Fred's amendment passes. CA legalizes homosexual marriage, and Adam and Bart get married under that state's laws. They earn money and file Federal taxes as a married couple and pay SS and FICA. They then move to Utah, which does not recognize the status. Nevertheless, they file their joint Federal return as married. Are they? Is the UT firm they now work for required to collect Federal taxes as if they were? Can one claim the other as a dependent for Federal purposes, but not State? Which State's marriage law is the Federal govt. bound to recognize; where the union occurred, or where they reside? What's to keep Chad and Darryl, A&B's neighbors in UT from going to CA and marrying solely to dodge Federal taxes? If Adam dies in UT, is Bart legally entitled to Adam's SS benefits?
How are you going to resolve any of these questions if the Federal judges are "muzzled"? And what do you think will happen when Bart files a Federal suit under the 14th A., claiming that he is not getting equal protection of the law? Or, if the Feds give Bart the marriage benefits, when the State of Utah sues to recover the expenses because the Feds are violating Fred's new amendment?
Abortion is a horrible thing, but I agree with Fred: Overturn Roe and return it to the states. That's where it belongs. And sure as hell don't use taxpayers' money to fund them. That's plain wicked.
Well put, my friend. The goal is to reintroduce individual responsibility as a cornerstone of our democracy. People who accept welfare entitlements should have to look a taxpayer in the eye when they take the money. No more anonymous checks in the mail.
I bet you don't have many friends and the few you do have snicker at you behind your back for being such a self-righteous prig. I sure as hell am glad that you're not part of MY social circle or family. I feel sorry for those who have to be associated with you. You sound like a first-class jerk who contributes nothing but strife to daily life. If you're lonely, you have only yourself to blame.
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.