Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fred Thompson Speaks on Same-Sex Marriage 10/2/07 (video)
Youtube ^ | 10/2/07 | Fred Thompson

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 ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: axisofdesperation; fred; fredthompson; hitpiece; hunterspissants; pissanthropy; pisspoorthread
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last
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.
1 posted on 10/04/2007 11:23:26 AM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pissant

2 posted on 10/04/2007 11:26:59 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Blaming Fred for the fact that there isn't going to be a Constitutional Ammendment that outlaws gay marriage anytime soon is unfair and irrational.

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.

3 posted on 10/04/2007 11:43:34 AM PDT by sourcery (Referring a "social conservative" to the Ninth Amendment is like showing the Cross to Dracula.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

Bump for later


4 posted on 10/04/2007 11:54:56 AM PDT by mnehring ("Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!"- Jim Robinson, Sept, 30, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pissant

“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.


5 posted on 10/04/2007 11:58:19 AM PDT by teddyballgame (red man in a blue state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
A Constitutional prohibition against same-sex marriage is politically impossible—

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.

6 posted on 10/04/2007 12:01:10 PM PDT by mngran
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mngran

Duncan Hunter cosponsored legislation calling for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Leadership held it up for the lack of votes, presumably.


7 posted on 10/04/2007 12:09:04 PM PDT by pissant (Duncan Hunter: Warrior, Statesman, Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pissant
If the federal gov't won't stop them -- can't per the amended constitution -- then those states that choose marriage by whatever name will have to offer federal recognition and benefits. Thompson undermines the Defensive of Marriage Act which he himself voted for. What he is proposing is allowing one liberal state to force the federal government to recognize and reward homo marriage.

Fred moves to my won't vote for list over this one.

8 posted on 10/04/2007 12:10:43 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Thompson undermines the Defensive of Marriage Act which he himself voted for. What he is proposing is allowing one liberal state to force the federal government to recognize and reward homo marriage.

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.

9 posted on 10/04/2007 12:50:13 PM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton
The status quo is that marriage is recognized by the federal government. Look at your federal tax return. Right after your name and SS# you are asked about your marital status. There are a ton of federal marriage benefits the gay activists are seeking. Fred's proposal would give them that.

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.

10 posted on 10/04/2007 1:11:06 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
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.

11 posted on 10/04/2007 1:25:58 PM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton
So he wants to distinguish beteen homo marriage and normal marriage by calling one a state marriage and the other a federal marriage? I don't see how that contradiction can hold unless you at least call them something different. He will have to address other clauses in the Constitution than just the full faith and credit clause if he wants to allow homosexual marriage but not treat it equal to normal marriage. What about equal protection? That's one the gay activists love. If the court didn't order the marriage, what's to stop the court from insisting the federal government treat those marriages equally? 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 won't hold.

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.

12 posted on 10/04/2007 2:01:46 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
So he wants to distinguish beteen homo marriage and normal marriage by calling one a state marriage and the other a federal marriage?

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.

13 posted on 10/04/2007 2:31:22 PM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jellybean; girlangler; KoRn; Shortstop7; Lunatic Fringe; Darnright; babygene; pitbully; granite; ...
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference

WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.

14 posted on 10/04/2007 2:58:33 PM PDT by Politicalmom (Of the potential GOP front runners, FT has one of the better records on immigration.- NumbersUSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pissant

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.


15 posted on 10/04/2007 3:06:34 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton
I'm reading your posts. You are not seeing how your points contradict.

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.

16 posted on 10/04/2007 3:07:28 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

You are 100% correct.


17 posted on 10/04/2007 3:09:16 PM PDT by pissant (Duncan Hunter: Warrior, Statesman, Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

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.


18 posted on 10/04/2007 3:10:49 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Thought you’d want to see the man in ‘action’.


19 posted on 10/04/2007 3:13:25 PM PDT by pissant (Duncan Hunter: Warrior, Statesman, Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton

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.


20 posted on 10/04/2007 3:15:03 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson