Posted on 10/04/2007 11:23:21 AM PDT by pissant
Here is Fred Thompson outlining his approach to defending traditional marriage by stopping judicial activism to promote same-sex marriage. Fred was speaking to the editorial board of the Des Moines Register. This is the complete video segment as opposed to a disingenuous cropped version of 1 minute also posted on YouTube.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
A Constitutional prohibition against same-sex marriage is politically impossible—whether Fred agitates for it or not. Although Fred's proposed change to the "full faith and credit" clause wouldn't be easy to get get passed, at least it's plausible to believe it could be done.
Bump for later
“Sorry, I don’t buy this line of thinking. If Fred was willing to Amend the Constitution to tell states they had to impose term limits on their representatives, then he can muster up the energy to BAN gay marriage, instead of tinkering with the full faith and credit clause.”
Agreed. Every time this guy takes a step forwards (in my eyes) he takes two steps back. The more I hear him the more I can’t stand to listen to him. It’s more exciting to watch paint dry. It’s too bad I really want to like him.
You're absolutely right, but it wasn't a few years ago. And what did the GOP do for us then when they had the power? Almost nothing. A mention of it here or there to keep our dollars and votes coming, but no real push to pass the FMA, in my opinion.
Duncan Hunter cosponsored legislation calling for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Leadership held it up for the lack of votes, presumably.
Fred moves to my won't vote for list over this one.
I don't know how you can interpret his position like that. . The DMA already provides that:
No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.
The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
The proposed amendment would actually keep the status quo. It's only real effect would be to deny the ability of the Courts to find the DMA unconstitutional. States could approve same sex marriage if the people wanted it, but other states and the federal government would not have to recognize it. It would also allow states to amend their own constitutions to ban same sex marriage with the certainty that these provisions would be compatible with the Federal constitution.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. It passed overwhelmingly. Fred voted for this federal legislation himself. Yet Fred's amendment would trump the DOMA and would actually force the federal gov't to give federal recognition to gay marriages as long as the state legislatures gave their blessing. Unless Fred plans to end all federal recognition and benefits of marriage and repeal the full faith and credit clause, I don't see how he can claim his amendment would keep other states from being affected. We are one nation. If the federal gov't recognizes homosexual marriages then you can hardly keep your state from doing the same.
That's the whole point. The proposed amendment would modify the full faith and credit clause to the extent that it would not apply to same sex marriage. The DMA states that the Federal government does not recognize same sex marriage and that states don't have to either. That is the law now. That would not change.
The other amendment held firm on marriage, though it left us vulnerable to gay activists efforts to create marriage under a different name. At least the loss would be slower and if the distinction holds (I doubt it), it could potentially contain the problem within a few liberal states. But eventually the gay activists will insist that civil unions are marriages and that the federal gov't should treat them equally.
Are you reading my posts? Neither me, nor Fred, said anything of the kind.
What about equal protection?
The Equal Protection clause says that you must treat everyone in your state equally, whether they are a citizen of that state or not, not that you must treat everyone in your state as they would be treated in the state where they are citizens. In a state where same sex marriage was not allowed, everyone married to the opposite sex would be treated equally i.e their marriage would be recognized. Everyone who was married to someone of the same sex would be treated equally i.e. the "marriage" would not be recognized.
Fred's plan can't work because he is trying to have it both ways. He is trying to say states can choose and yet what they choose will not equal in the eyes of the federal gov't.
That's the law right now. If it became part of the Constitution it certainly would "hold". That's the whole point.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
A new thread for the same report?
Thompson has fallen flat and the is the issue that speed bumped his campaign with conservatives.
I don’t see how he can go further without the core.
There is no reason to donate or provide time for just another doubletalking romney type.
If the federal constitution allows states to define marriage any way they want, then the equal protection clause will force the federal government to treat those marriages the same way.
The federal DOMA defines marriages as being only between one man and one woman. Fred's amendment would do just the opposite whether it say so in so many words or not. THAT IS THE HUGE DIFFERENCE!!! Fred rejects the marriage amendment that would protect the DOMA. His amendment would overturn the DOMA because it would define marriage in the United States as anything any given state defines it as. Then it would try to make sure other states didn't have to recognize those marriages by saying the full faith and credit clause doesn't apply. But what about the federal government? Unless Fred also plans to say that the equal protection clause doesn't apply, and whatever else the homosexual lawsuiters might use to claim entitlement to federal recognition, Fred's amendment would force the federal government to recognize homosexual marriages just as long as the marriage happened with the blessing of a state legislature.
If the federal gov't recognizes and rewards the marriages, then pretending other states don't have to recognize them is a joke. If the federal government is allowed to treat these two kinds of marriages as different, then pretending state legislatures can choose for themselves is dishonest. His plan is contradictory and therefore can't do what he claims it can do. You can't give the choice and not give the choice at the same time. That's a basic principle of logic, the law of non-contradiction.
You are 100% correct.
The full faith and credit arguement fred proposes is LAUGHABLE and would not pass a first year constitutional law class.
IT is VERY doable. We now have a 2/3 PLUS of states with DMA laws or amendments. the public OVERWHELMINGLY supports a constitutional marriage amendment to shut down the homosexuals.
A president’s position is a LITMUS TEST of his CHARACTER.
The fact Thompson is doing a doublespeak BS that is legally absurd is NOT GOOD for his candidacy.
If this is going to be his position he should stop wasting our time and go home.
Thought you’d want to see the man in ‘action’.
No way in hell would this Thompson absurdity hold in a pre-determined court.
The full faith and credit could be twisted to allow homosexual marriage witout batting an eyelash.
Full faith and credit already causes divorce laws and marriage laws to cross state lines in relation to recognition as the status of people. (ie common law marraige recognized for purposes of divorce)
The ONLY thing he will acomplish is to have 50 SEPERATE rules all at the same time in ALL the states.
Thompson is failing the character test by putting forth this BS.
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.