Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Quick Reference
Fred Thompson FAQ: THE Fred Thompson Web Resource
Posted on 09/07/2007 10:41:59 AM PDT by Josh Painter
Speaking in Sioux City, Iowa, moments ago, Fred Thompson endorsed an amendment to the Constitution that would prevent state judges from altering the definition of marriage without the direction of their states' legislatures.
Mr. Thompson has been under fire from social conservatives in recent days for refusing to support the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would define marriage in the United States as being between one man and one woman. He's said that such an amendment would conflict with his views on federalism.
Along with restraining state judges, the amendment Mr. Thompson is proposing would also mandate that no state be forced to recognize gay marriages from other states (such as, say, Tennessee being forced to recognize gay marriages from Massachusetts).
Mr. Thompson's proposal came in response to the second of two questions Mr. Thompson got from the crowd in Sioux City on the question of what the federal government's role should be in regard to homosexuality.
More to come, including video of Mr. Thompson's statement...
FRED in IOWA Ping!
He need to get on record to show that he wants to prevent federal judges from doing the same.
He need to get on record to show that he wants to prevent federal judges from doing the same.
If a constitutional amendment defining marriage goes against his views of federalism, he needs to explain how the alternative amendment he is proposing does not. That makes no sense at all. The only possibility I can think of is if such an amendment basically said that there was nothing in the US Constitution upon which a state judge could rely on in mandating same sex marriages. In other words, his proposed amendment would essentially state that it was up to each state to determine whether or not it same sex marriage is permitted in that state. If his views of federalism do not allow for the US Constitution to define marriage, then his version of federalism also should not dictate how a state should decide the issue.
The actions of a few judges is what is motivating his decision process on this I believe.
This is interesting. I hope to see the video tonight. Makes sense.
Well, good to see he’s on the record about favoring an amendment on marriage.
When the gay marriage issue first came up in the mid 90s in a court case there, many states did not specifically define marriage as a man and a woman. So then many states did pass laws on the subject, as did the federal government. And we were told that a federal amendment wasn’t needed, and that defining marriage in the law was good enough.
But as we see in Iowa, judges are now comfortable with overturning laws that define marriage as 1 man 1 woman. Some opposed to marriage amendments have said it’s not needed because if the regular law defines marriage, that’s good enough. Well, clearly it’s not good enough, as liberal judges have shown they are not shy about throwing out marriage and family law.
It has always been the states that issued marriage licenses and the federal government has never done that. Each state has always made their own conditions for the basis of a marriage, what age you can get married. It has always been state law since the beginning of our country. It would be far easier to duke it out in your own state with your own state legislators than to try to do it nationally.
Something like he is proposing might also hold back a federal judge in making a ruling.
Fill their holes with soap.
Souls! Souls, and Hope, Hope.
Fair enough.
If the Defense of Marriage Act, which Fred voted for, is overturned on the federal level, I’m sure he would back a federal amendment restraining judges.
When I first saw the headline, I was hoping that it meant that Fred lined up with the FMA.
Mitt Romney is supportive of it, and that would would have been a good thing.
But on reading it, it seems to say something quite a bit weaker. “Speaking in Sioux City, Iowa, moments ago, Fred Thompson endorsed an amendment to the Constitution that would prevent state judges from altering the definition of marriage without the direction of their states’ legislatures.”
I don’t see how a Federal Constitutional amendment directing state judges is any less violative of ‘federalism’ than a simple legal declarative statement that marriage is defined as a union of one man and one woman. So Fred is signing up for an amendment that keeps the bad stuff but doesn’t keep the good stuff - which is to settle this issue once and for all for the whole country.
This is the text of the FMA.
“SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
Thinking about how much further the Federal Government goes in tying the states on matters like environment, education, health care, welfare, workers regs, etc. This is about as much of a threat to States Rights as the 13th amendment abolishing slavery.
Nevertheless, Pedantic types will use the Federalism red herring to attack a good idea... eg Ron Paul doesnt like the FMA:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
I’m quite underwhelmed by this unwillingness to properly defend the traditional 1500-year-old definition of marriage in western civ. FMA support should be a slam dunk.
Okay a second question. How do you deal with the federal benefits of marriage? Since Fred already voted for the DOMA, he has voted to recognize marriage as one/man and one woman for the purposes of the federal gov't anyway. So is DOMA enough to make it a federal policy that no homosexual marriages are awarded federal recognition and benefits?
I don't like this, and I think it is perfectly legit for the federal gov't to set boundaries just as they did with Utah in the 1800's. But this may be the best we can hope for at this point. Everything else being suggested is much worse.
Nicely said, and an interesting paradox: how can you legislate social conservative values on the federal level while simultaneously supporting states’ sovereignity? This is Thompson trying to pander to all sides; and it just might work.
THIS WAS OBVIOUS JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
1) A county judge made this ruling
2) He told the county court house to IMMEDIATELY IMPLEMENT his ruling which is odd on a controversial ruling such as this
2) Iowa requires a 3 day waiting period which some how ONE perverted “couple” found a judge to provide the exemption BEFORE the ruling was put on hold.
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.