Position approved by this Fred-Head
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
Start talking about limiting government and reforming the tax system, Fred. Start addressing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and our $9 trillion national debt. The social issues will take care of themselves. States have already taken the lead and banning them, even here in Wisconsinstan we banned homosexual marriage.
What is really sad here is the ones who post this drivel and others who support other low pollinig candidates have no other recourse than to attack the one who can and will lead conservatives back to the White House.
It is unfortunate for them that their guy can't get any traction no matter where he goes or what he does and says. It is not resounding with the voters.
They have hooked up to a losing cause, and take it out on the rest of us by bringing derision and insults.
It's shameful and contributes only to a deep division here at FR that it may never recover from.
I agree with most of your post - particularly about the purpose of public recognition of marriage, which is an incredibly important institution for the healthy propagation of a civilized society.
I still have a problem with it being a federal issue to such a great degree. Inheritance and welfare are principally governed by state laws. Social security and medicaid come from federal taxes on income - two programs for which there is no Constitutioal authority for the feds to engage in.
If the federal taxes on income are eliminated and the death tax is allowed to itself die, then, there really is little federal interest regarding marriage.
WHAT a great post! Thanks for the ammunition! Very well said!
DOMA prohibits them from filing US taxes as a married couple.
So the rest of your example becomes vaccuous.
Strike 1.
As far as challenging DOMA, this is why Thompson has mentioned an amendment to restrict those challenges.
Strike 2.
As for clashes with the 14th or other amendment, Chief Justice Roberts will be involved in the drafting of the Thompson Amendment.
Strike 3.
Next batter.
This is a legal ABSURDITY.
The judge will not rule on “marriage” the judge will rule on FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.
This is not a “compromise” this is EXACTLY what the homosexual groups want to impose homosexual marriage on the entire nation.
That is why Hawaii courts, Vermont’s civil unions, and Massachusetts outright imposition were all about.
Not even a pre=law student would be allowed to say something this stupid. A constitutional law student in their first year of law school would be flunked out for something this absurd. (here is a dime, call your parents to pick you up stupid)
commerce clause, full faith and credit, all will be used.
You are 100% correct.
Thompson is killing his own campaign.
This is a dealbreaker issue because the analysis crosses over to so may other issues.
Will the second amendment become a “states rights issue”?
Will internet speech surpression become a “states rights issue”?
the list is endless.
IF, IF, this is really Thompson’s position he sould just quit today.
Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Hyperbole, wishful thinking, hot air.
What else you got besides these three?
Nevermind I don’t want to know. I already have to ventilate my computer from this cyber stench.
The 1996 DOMA is a mere law. A law Clinton agreed to because he thought it inevitable it would be struck down.
The fact is ALL your counters are irrelevant because DOMA SHALL be found unconstitutional by at least ONE of the multitude of federal judges.
Even if they have to creat the fraud of civil unions ALL the test cases pending are about using Full Faith and Credit to impose one states homosexual recognitions on the other states.
A decisive constitutional amendment codifying the current common law that marriage is one man and one woman will lock down ALL constitutional interpritations and shut down the fiction of civil unions for homosexuals.
Marriage is already a federal issue. It has been since 1995.
They seems to have omitted the core points of Fred’s views:
The federal government will not recognize gay marriages.
States will not be forced to recognize gay marriages.
Your batting average? You don’t want to know. But you made contact which is more than most can accomplish.
Yes, DOMA will be struck down. And that is why Thompson is drafting his amendment.
Do some homework, here it’s direct from the Warhorse’s mouth:
http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/09/political-video-of-the-day-fred-1.html
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....
The Fred plan would mean that the feds would not recognize a gay marriage. Adam and Bart file separately, as single, unless one takes the other as a dependent (which anyone can do now if they meet certain criteria.)
The whole point is that a few idiot states like Massachusetts can have no effect on those in other states.
attend a Bar conference and consider the REALITY of federal judges and especially state court judges.
You are dreaming in technicolor if you think they are not going to word twist this around.
Remember, civil unions were a product of the courts working to bypass citizens who voted DMA into existence. The newer DMA had to include civil union prohibitions in order to shut judges down.
the only thing you need to know is my batting average is more than sufficient to laugh at buffons who consistently get the law wrong and have no idea how real world judges work.
An opening the size of the eye of a needle is all the argument space an activist judge needs to torpedo marriage.
Activists can also easily turn the who concept around and simple argue that ALL marriage should be prohibited.
Thompson must not have spent too much time outside the office.
Well, since the people in the states have overwhelmingly voted against homosexual marriage, it seems a ‘shoe in’ to be outlawed if the issue is turned back to the states.
How much is the bounty on Rudy for fake conservatism? Must be HUGE!
Because Fred is smart enough to know those issues are important to a lot of conservatives. Any Republican candidate that ignores that does it to their own peril.
Position approved by this Fred-Head
But regardless, the basic question stands: How does the amendment proposed by Thompson deal with conflicts between differing laws in differing States, and the US citizens moving to or doing commerce in another? If it negates the "full faith and credit" clause in this regard, something needs to replace the relationship.
Say A&B continue to live in CA, but A inherits some land in UT. He then proceeds to die without a will. B claims the land by right of marriage joint property. A's sibling in UT claims B holds no legal standing, and that the land reverts to family, since under the original will from their parents, it does so if A remains unmarried. Article III, Sec. 2 would have that be a Federal case.
Or A&B get divorced, and CA determines that B deserves alimony and half the couple's assets. But A has cashed out all the assets and transfered it all to UT and moved before the divorce is final. Must UT garnish A's wages for alimony from a marriage they don't recognize ever existed?
Or lesbians X&Y have a child via in vitro, borne by X. After divorce, X wins custody and child support. Can Y move to UT to avoid it, since she bears no genetic link to the child and the state doesn't recognize the marriage ever existed?
As for clashes with the 14th or other amendment, Chief Justice Roberts will be involved in the drafting of the Thompson Amendment.
Personally, I am not comfortable with having the Chief Justice involved with drafting any legislation, even the Supreme Law of the Land. It would mean he would ethically need to recuse himself in any matter touching the amendment.
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.