Uh, Fredheads, you might want to correct these folks. If the PinkNews thinks Fred is progressive, that ain't gonna help
Why do you continue to post this utter crap. Just because your candidate is at 0.00001% in the polls? Fred is a federalist who strongly believes in states rights. That is very conservative. Gee, imagine that, someone who believes in the Constitution.
Fred seems to have a penchant for sticking his foot in it.
I think once the source is considered, and the motives there of, it will all work out...
Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
We need to remove the ability of Judges to make law that doesn't exist.
Fred recommends that States can make their own laws, a true State's Rights issue, and stop legislating from the bench.
Amending the Constitution every time some ACLU-loving activist Judge commands something is NOT the way to go.
For the DuncanDonuts here, attacking on this issue is really weak.
Duncan Who?
Danm! and here I had just about convinced myself he was OK even with CFR and all.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.