Fred's Federalism Clashes with Potential Allies

FoxNews ^ | 9/5/07 | papasmurf

[papasmurf]

The influential Arlington Group, a coalition of prominent leaders of the so-called "religious right, has decided to withhold their planned support for the fledgling campaign of former Senator Fred Thompson.

[Mr. Lucky]

Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the notion that the central government should be telling sovereign states how to conduct their business. If Massachusetts or Iowa want to become magnets for sodomites, that's their business (and as a resident of Indiana, I say more power to them).

[Fred]

Here is a list of orgs that make up this group

* American Association of Christian Counselors, Tim Clinton, President
* American Family Association, Don Wildmon, President
* American Family Association Michigan, Gary Glenn, President
* American Values, Gary Bauer, President
* Bott Radio Network, Richard Bott, Vice President
* CatholicVote.org, Raymond Flynn
* Citizens for Community Values, Phil Burress, President
* Coalition of African American Pastors, William Owens
* ConservativeHQ.com, Richard Viguerie
* Coral Ridge Ministries, Dr. D. James Kennedy, President
* Covenant Marriage Movement, Phil Waugh, Executive Director
* Faith 2 Action, Janet Folger, President
* Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, President
* Focus on the Family, Dr. James Dobson, Chairman
* Free Congress Foundation, Paul Weyrich, President
* Free Market Foundation, Kelly Shackelford, President
* Liberty Council, Matthew Staver
* Liberty University, Jerry Falwell
* National Association of Evangelicals, Ted Haggard, President
* National Coalition for the Protection of Children/Families, Jack Samad, President
* Salem Communications Corporation, Stuart Epperson
* Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Richard Land, President
* Traditional Values Coalition, Rev. Lou Sheldon, President



So is Carl Cameron waiting for this org to endorse his guy, Rudy Giuliani???

[billbears]

Of course they don’t. Social ‘conservatives’ believe morality should be legislated at the national level, contrary to the intent of the Framers

[CheyennePress]

>>>So, why can’t Iowa solve this problem?<<<

An ounce of prevention might actually be worth a pound of cure, you know.

Or you like the idea of giving the US Senate one crack at passing a marriage amendment after a runaway activist judge has declared gay (or whatever type have you) marriage legal.

Because I’ll just tell you, that’s all we’ll get. Once it’s legal, there’s no going back. And the country will pay a heavy price for destroying what has been implied in traditional marriage in every society on earth for as long as man has kept history.

And you ask why Iowa can’t solve this problem. Well, all that takes is a brief look at the way government works. Because one ruling by the US Supreme Court that bans of non-traditional marriages are unconstitutional is all it will take to destroy Iowa’s marriage amendment. Further, marriage is something has is granted federal rights and benefits. It should be protected at the federal level.

[G8 Diplomat]

If Massachusetts or Iowa want to become magnets for sodomites, that's their business

When marriage is under attack I see no problem with an amendment interfering to put an end to that attack. Our primary allegiance should be to morality, not the Constitution.

Some of us aren't willing to let society fall apart more than it has already via gay marriage just for the sake of the "states rights" crowds. If you won't do something about it, we will.

[papasmurf]

It is a huge travesty when we allow judges to make law and decide it.

This is a failure of the State of Iowa, not FRed Thompson.

[G8 Diplomat]

Morality reigns supreme to the Constitution, and if it’s under attack why should the national government not have every right to stand up for it if the states won’t?

[CheyennePress]

>>> If Massachusetts or Iowa want to become magnets for sodomites, that’s their business (and as a resident of Indiana, I say more power to them).<<<

Until a US federal court judge strikes down that pretty little DOMA act Indiana (and every other state) passed. Then it doesn’t really matter what the people of Indiana think, does it?

[Mr. Lucky]

And when the "morality" which trumps the Constitution is determined by leftists, we end up with Roe v. Wade. Sorry, I'll take freedom over the central government's concept of morality.

[G8 Diplomat]

I don’t subscribe to the notion that the central government should be telling sovereign states how to conduct their business

Generally it shouldn't. But if that business the states are meddling in is immoral, the central government ought to have the right to tell them to knock it off via an amendment. Morality first, Constitution second.

[CheyennePress]

>>>>It is a huge travesty when we allow judges to make law and decide it. This is a failure of the State of Iowa, not FRed Thompson.<<<<

Guess who is enabling it?

Answer: Those who stand in the way of setting in stone for the entire nation what marriage is, has been, and should always be.

That includes Fred Thompson.

Go back to 1985. Did you even envision that we’d need DOMA acts? But wishy-washy politics have just enabled an outcast bunch of perverts the right to completely redefine marriage in Iowa, if for but a day.

You want your kids growing up in a society that says, “Oh, having kids is an option. If you really want to. And if you marry someone of the opposite sex.”

[papasmurf]

Well, why not get an amendment to ban hunting in Wyoming, or Alabama while you’re at it.

Or an amendment to ban children eating at McDonald's?

You want more Federal government intrusion, I want less. If I must be regulated and legislated and controlled and protected, and, and, and, I’d rather it was by my State, and NOT by a group of people who have no idea of my culture, community, or traditions.

I would have a choice, then, to accept it, or to move to a different State. The Federal option leaves us no choice and no recourse.

[G8 Diplomat]

When I say morality I mean real morality, not what some leftists thinks is right.

And currently Iowa and Mass seem to think gay marriage is moral and acceptable. I’ll take an amendement barring that. The states’ concept of morality can be wrong too.

[Mr. Lucky]

OK, the federal government decided that the prohibition of the murder of unborn children was immoral (denying women the fundmental “right to choose”), striking down state laws protecting the sanctity of life. How many Americans have been butchered in the womb (or partially extracted from the womb) as a result?

[G8 Diplomat]

Well, why not get an amendment to ban hunting in Wyoming, or Alabama while you’re at it. Or an amendment to ban children eating at McDonald's?

Because those are not things that need to be banned, unlike gay marriage. If the states won't ban it, the feds should come in and MAKE them ban it. This isn't federal govt intrusion, it's simply a protection of morals done by the feds cuz the states couldn't do it themselves.

[papasmurf]

The “people” ARE the State. Blame the people for not standing up, not the legislature.

Look at what we, the people, did on the shamesty issue. THAT’S how the people become self determining.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

he doesn’t play games like say, Ron Paul.

LOLOL. You guys have reached a new low. When has Paul ever played games with abortion. The man delivered over 4,000 babies, for crying out loud. He has always been pro-life.

[G8 Diplomat]

The feds made the wrong decision there. But Roe v. Wade isn’t the issue here. The feds will be making the right decision if this amendment is added.

I am NOT saying “Always trust the feds”—I’m saying go with them in this case because a national amendment is a way to end all gay unions. Were we debating Roe v. Wade, I would say not to listen to them. The leftists have skewered morality, which is why we need this amendment protecting it. Unless every state agrees bans gay marriage and doesn’t strike down those bans, we need an amendment.

[G8 Diplomat]

I do blame the people for not standing up to the legislature, but also the legislature for making the wrong decision.

Some legislators hardly even listen to their constituents anymore. You can write to polticians over and over but they’ll still do what they want. Most of ‘em, anyway.

[mnehring]

Really????

Some of his votes against limiting or restricting abortion:

(1)Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill HR 748 ; vote number 2005-144 on Apr 27, 2005
(2)Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill HR 1997 ; vote number 2004-31 on Feb 26, 2004
(3)Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. Human Cloning Prohibition Act; Bill HR 534 ; vote number 2003-39 on Feb 27, 2003
(4)Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. Bill sponsored by Graham, R-SC; Bill HR 503 ; vote number 2001-89 on Apr 26, 2001
(5)Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. Bill sponsored by Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL; Bill HR 1218 ; vote number 1999-261 on Jun 30, 1999