Posted on 10/04/2007 12:49:47 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
The Brody File is working around the clock and this time has found video of Fred Thompson talking this week to the Des Moines Register editorial board. He’s explaining his view of a federal marriage amendment. This video has not been out there before. It is now, courtesy of The Brody File. Watch it here.
Part of the transcription reads:
“A judge couldn’t impose this (gay marriage) state or federal unless they had the acquiescence or unless the state legislature moved on its own to put it into law. If a state chose to recognize it (gay marriage) and the Governor signed off and signed it into legislation so be it. My opinion would be that that would be a very bad thing and a very surprising thing.”
His position here is not new. But the words “so be it” may be just a tad bit flip for social conservatives. The marriage issue could very well be a problem for Fred Thompson with many Evangelical voters. I know that his view is not well received with certain Evangelical groups. Comments like "so be it" don't help.
You see, let me try and explain what’s going on here. The millions of religious conservatives who are adamantly for a strict federal marriage amendment believe that marriage IS a one size fits all approach. Thompson is trying the federalism track here but here’s where he gets into trouble. Let’s take slavery for example. Hypothetically, if a state legislature approves slavery and a Governor signs it into law, then “so be it”? Of course not.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbn.com ...
Yeah, because gay marriage is so much like human bondage.
What an insulting, obscene comparison.
Federalism cuts both ways.
I suspect the social conservatives are not as close to Fred as they originally suspected.
Does anyone know...is he opposed to Roe vs Wade, wanting to see it overturned, or does he support a federal prohibition of abortion?
Well, Thompson takes the same position on abortion by opposing the Human Life Amendment. And killing someone and enslaving them definately are comparable. So, I think that the analogy certainly fits Thompson’s position on abortion.
Well, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, so a state, at this point couldn’t vote it into being...in that way the example is flawed.
Since, at present we don’t have a “marriage amendment” and IMHO, passing one and ratifying it isn’t likely or imminent, I agre with what Thompson is saying.
My opinion would be that that would be a very bad thing and a very surprising thing.”
It doesn't look like the Brody File assumed context to the words so be it isn't what the video actually shows.
Tell me again, what Constitutional role does the President play in the Constitutional amendment process?
Slavery or rather the prohibition of it is guaranteed in the constitution, however, the judges and legislatures of the day chose to ignore and circumvent it’s abolition
Marriage and it’s administration however IS NOT a power specifically designated for the Federal government and therefor MUST be delegated to the states as is prescribed in the constitution. Fred’s solution is the only answer to keep states from imposing their laws on other states and still live within the constraints of true Federalism.
Thompson walks the walk unlike most who give lip service to Federalism/Constitutionalism but stray when it suits their purpose.
ping
Aaah, the Holy Grail... Better to get nothing and go back 50 steps than give up that dream of ramming a divisive Federal intervention down exerybody's throats that will never pass. Tilting at windmills, indeed.
Romney supporters just last night were urging an “evidence-based” campaign. I guess that doesn’t apply to their hit pieces.
The Romney Sleaze Machine rolls on.
well said...its easy to be a convenient believer in things.
Its much harder to stick to a belief fully.
Fred sticks to it and has the courage to say it.
Tell me again, what Constitutional role does the President play in the Constitutional amendment process?
But if Romney leaves his CFR membership off of his resume, all is well with them, I guess.
Please explain to me how if homosexual marriage is legalized in a few states, it won’t be forced on the rest of the states? (And the federal government. The IRS will have to recognize the marriage, for tax purposes. That will be used to show the federal gov’t recognizes homosexual marriage.)
The same way that common law marriages of some States aren't recognized in others or age of consent marriages in some States aren't recognized in others.
Differing marriage laws not recognized by other States isn't uncommon.
Whether we like it or not . If a liberal states citizens are OK with liberal legislation and elect liberals then this is what happens and there is nothing that can be done unless a court strikes it down. If there is nothing that can be done or if it is not struck down then “So Be It”. That is just simply the truth.
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.