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.
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.