Skip to comments.Fred Thompson Opposes Federal Marriage Amendment (video)
Posted on 11/05/2007 6:06:22 PM PST by pissant
Fred Thompson on Meet the Press, 11/4/07.
(Excerpt) Read more at video.google.com ...
You know this is a duplicate as you have responded on some of the previous threads. Why do you insist on doing this?
It's real simple: Wherever possible, let states govern themselves, let the national (federal) gubmint deal with its own proper sphere.
Fred supports an amendment that respects states rights. One state can have fruity marriages if they want, but the other states don't have to honor it.
Why didn’t you search your previous posts today?
This would have been unthinkable 15 years ago. Absolutely unthinkable. I guess Will and Grace and Queer Eye have changed America.
Don’t recall talking about poofer marriage today. Perhaps you could enlighten me
I like the idea of states governing themselves. We're only supposed to be a union of states, bonded by a pragmatic recognition of common interests and certain common traditions. But there is much room for differences, as there should be.
If we could all approach it that way, we might find ourselves more unified in the areas that require it the most--like the common defense.
Certain common traditions is right. Like marriage, for example.
Pissant strikes again, talk about beating a dead horse.
“Why do you insist on doing this?”
because it makes his candidate even MORE popular!
Oh...wait a minute....
Well, what can you do, pissant? If people change, you can't and shouldn't always run to the federal government to control them. How about a federal dress code? There's just some things you have to put up with in a free nation made up of distinct states with cultural differences.
The framers put up with differences just as bad, if not worse. They had to compromise with human traffickers and their supporters. But it was worth it. Wasn't it?
Thanks for the graphic.
BTTT. Very well said.
Yes, things change. And some things are worth preserving. Now Fred had his panties in a wad over term limits and tried mightily to get that passed as a constitutional amendment. If the founders wanted term limits, they would have put them in. Willing to tell states they have to have term limits for congresscritters is more important than the institution of marriage?
If there was even a hint of a movement for gay marriage in 1787, it would not be a problem today. It would have been dealt with.
So Fred would rather screw with the full faith and credit clause in the constitution than just get rid of the problem altogether.
That's right. Like our freedom, our system of government, our unity as a nation.
Willing to tell states they have to have term limits for congresscritters is more important than the institution of marriage?
Apples and oranges. Hell, not even. The founders never claimed to have created a perfect, unalterable system. They were quite sure it needed adjustments that they would not live to comprehend, as the system was put to the test in real life. That's why they created an amendment process.
When it comes to term limits, you are talking about representatives in the US Congress--the NATIONAL (federal) legislative body. It is therefore the shared domain of the federal gubmint and the states, and in the case of congressman, the people. So there is appropriately some interplay. Since the Constitution sets out the term lengths for those office holders, it doesn't seem far fetched to me to revisit the original terms with the benefit of 200+ years of experience.
In the case of a federal marriage amendment, you are taking an area where the national government has NO business, NO authority, NO jurisdiction, and lording over the states and the people. Granted, the amendment process requires state legislative review, but evenso, what's objectionable is widening the scope of the national government into social areas where it doesn't belong. It turns out that even something procedurally correct can be philosophically wrong. The proper roles of the various branches should be preserved.
The only area where the feds have a proper say in the matter is the area where Fred has staked his ground--that states should not be required to recognize the marriage laws of other states. I'm cool with that. Leave it to the people, pissant. It's called freedom. If there was even a hint of a movement for gay marriage in 1787, it would not be a problem today. It would have been dealt with. So Fred would rather screw with the full faith and credit clause in the constitution than just get rid of the problem altogether.
whoops... i left pissant’s quote on the end of mine. my post should have ended with “it’s called freedom.”
ROTFLMAO!! Isn't 1% within the margin of error on most polls? So he could actually be at -2%?
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
'Social' issues dealt with in the constitution and our history include, to name just a few....
1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. The act banned plural marriage and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
In the 1913 income tax provisions, an accommodation was made for exemption from taxation of religious, charitable, educational, and scientific organizations.
The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act: "An Act To provide for the registration of, with collectors of internal revenue, and to impose a special tax on all persons who produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, distribute, or give away opium or coca leaves, their salts, derivatives, or preparations, and for other purposes." The courts interpreted this to mean that physicians could prescribe narcotics to patients in the course of normal treatment, but not for the treatment of addiction.
Amendment 19 - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977: to establish federal criminal penalties for the depiction of minors as participants in sexually explicit conduct in pornographic films, books, or other visual media.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act: Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.
“I can see that social conservatives might not like it”
And therein Fred dooms his chances and fragments the party. Federalism has its place, but there are times when it has to go out the window. Thompson’s “FREDeralism” is not a good idea, IMO, because it doesn’t take into account how things creep, and how the courts can’t be trusted.
Only a constitutional ammendment to ban homosexual marraige (and abortion for that matter) in all states will maintain consistency. Some things just have to be universal to all states.
Amendment 8 did not include the Morill Anti-Bigamy Act. It was supposed to be a paragraph break.
“There’s just some things you have to put up with in a free nation made up of distinct states with cultural differences.”
No, I must respectfully disagree. There are some universals that must remain constant from state to state. Thompson’s devotion to his FREDeralism is hurting him as a candidate and potential president.
BTW - The framers didn’t address such issues because the common mood of the country would not allow such things. I don’t think any of them could imagine how much America would literally degenerate over time.
Utah wasn’t allowed to enter the union until it canned polygamy. Why wasn’t that cultural way allowed? Because it was bad for the union, the same way homosexual marriage is.
From Shannon Royce:
I have no idea who Shannon Royce is, nor do I care.
I didn’t know Royce joined the Thompson campaign. That’s a great move on Fred’s part. Thanks for pointing this out.
Thank Daylilly. LOL
If you don’t realize how impractical your political perspective is, and you grasp on the impossible...you’ll never gain anything. Despite how much I dislike Bush’s policies on immigration and so-forth, I see the positive element in him picking some justices.
Even if Duncan got in to office, I give him a 100 to 1 shot of getting a Constitutional ban on abortion. That requires a powerful conservative congress. If your a man of God, you’ll realize that even the divine works in time. All evil takes time to squelch.
Look how limited Reagan’s effect was on this...and Bush senior. If their justices had being purely on key with this, we’d see our movement leaps and bounds ahead in this. But even the caliber you see in Duncan (which you describe as a true Reagan follower), could lead to not much more.
It requires constant effort on our part.
This is about gay marriage, not abortion. But both need to be fought on all fronts. Not just hoping that judges will overturn it. that may never happen.
Shannon Royce has joined Fred’s team?
It needs to be fought, but the praticality must be understood.
If you know history, you know the mormon pologamy was addressed in the courts, not through a constitutional amendment. The best way...the most practical...is through the courts. Most negative changes come through there, and vice-versa.
Actually not. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. The act banned plural marriage and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.
It was upheld in the courts 20 years later.
To further demonstrate the low character of the Hunter Duncan supporter.
“Actually not. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. The act banned plural marriage and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.
It was upheld in the courts 20 years later.”
It wasn’t a constitutional amendment, was it?
It was the practical way. Congress was able to pass a law, and then the courts solidified it when it came up. No amendment. That was my point.
Not all Duncan supporters are bad...atleast I respect their candidate in comparison to Rudy.
Yes, just like Hunter’s Right to Life act that has dozens of cosponsors. No need for an amendment if this baby passes. Except Thompson would not sign it.
You’re right. My apologies. Let me restate that:
“To further demonstrate the low character of the most vocal Hunter Duncan supporters.”
Hunter Duncan’s a good man. He just needs a better class of supporter.
If we were any classier, it would be like a reception at Buckingham palace. Toughen up.
Buzz off, scum.
Once again, you come onto my thread and tell me to buzz off. You can pound sand, sally.
But I’d be bitter too after that performance on Russert by Fred.
You “would be bitter?”
Your bitter poll envy comes across in every poisonous hitpiece you post. Have fun in oblivion. Send me a postcard.
Yes, it does seem like a hit piece. Unfortunately, as usual, its from the horse’s mouth.
I heard today that Hunter Duncan was stopped by the highway patrol for a moving violation. The cop asked for ID, but when HD presented his license, the cop said “What? Who the hell is that?”
Funny, I always associated you with the other end of the horse.
To paraphrase Pat Paulsen:
"We're allowed to say Fred Thompson is a lousy actor, but we're not allowed to say he's a lousy politician - which is ridiculous. We know he's a good actor! And you can't say ANYTHING bad about "President" Thompson, because you shouldn't insult the President. But if you compliment him, who will believe it?"
“I have no idea who Shannon Royce is, nor do I care.”
You have good days, and bad days. I guess this is a bad day. Whatever else I think of you, at least I used to think you were up on current news. I guess that was wrong.
It isn’t about Shannon Royce, but she has a job and news to give out. The news that she spoke about was important.
Sometimes John Hawkins has some really good things to say, and you don’t pay much attention to that either.
To quote one of my favorite sitcoms:
Frankly, there are Fredheads here that are better advocates of Fred than Shannon or Hawkins. So telling me that there are 3rd parties that like Fred for myriad reasons is stating the obvious. There are evangelicals for Mitt. There are vets for Huckabee (I assume). There are ‘conservatives’ for Rudy. So it goes.
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.