Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Posted on 09/07/2007 10:41:59 AM PDT by Josh Painter
More historically ignorant phony pseudo-federalism.
Utah and three other states were only allowed into the Union on the condition that they would forever swear off plural marriage. The enabling legislation for those fours’ statehood Congress passed made it clear that their statehood could be withdrawn if they broke this pledge, changed their state constitutions, or in any way breached this agreement.
Someone owes those states an apology if marriage is not a federally permissable area for Congress to address, I guess.
Legal polygamy in Utah, anyone?
Alas, the Amendment as described by the news articles doesnt address that. one state could pass gay marriage by popular vote, and a Federal Judges could overturn DOMA and make Alabama recognize that marriage in a divorce case. This amendment wont stop Alabama from being required to recognize gay marriage. So it only plugs some of the holes in the dyke (no pun intended :-) ) against gay marriage.
ONLY the Federal Marriage Amendment would settle the issue and stop gay marriage completely, comprehensively and permanently. Without FMA, it will be an ongoing (and ultimately for us, losing) battle.
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.”
Any word yet on Thompson calling for an end to the Dept. of Education or any other agencies that clearly fall outside the Enumerated Powers?
/s
Judges will do what ever they d*** well please, Constitution be d***ed.
Perhaps he simply wants to assert that the judicial branch cannot supersede the will of the voters as expressed either by direct referendum or via their representatives in the executive and legislatures to redefine marriage either for each state or require incompatibly defined marriage recognition between states.
It's seems a bit nuanced and not a reflection of my view on government's role in licensing couples but it also appears to not dilute our ideals of federalism.
Ultimately I'll see what he actually said and means.
EV - Hey, we agree. Fancy that. :-)
Good point wrt polygamy.
See my comment on #17:
“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 [ Federal Marriage Amendment ] is about as much of a threat to States Rights as the 13th amendment abolishing slavery.”
Sure state judges are sometimes willing to overturn laws that define marriage, such as was done in Iowa. But, IMHO, the federal government has no business telling states how their judicial and legislative branches should function. That’s up to each state to decide. What Thompson is proposing seems far more violative of the basic principles of federalism than the amendment he opposes.
bump
Expanding on that point to include everything else would be nice :-)
ONLY the Federal Marriage Amendment would settle the issue and stop gay marriage completely, comprehensively and permanently.
FMA could be repealed within two generations.
Somewhat the same applies in the case of passing a Reagan style Human Rights Amendment to the Constitution. That is even more unlikely in the short term. Overturning Roe v Wade would send it back to the states by default. Thereby ending abortion on demand as policy of the US government. That would be fine with this conservative.
Conservatives need to take what we can get on these hot button social issues, all the while keeping up unrelented pressure on our elected officials.
Sounds to me like all he is proposing is that a judge can't make the decision - it has to be the legislature. Seems okay to me. What am I missing?
The chief problem is the full faith and credit clause. No state should be able to impose its domestic institutions on another state.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
This would be, if anything, an infraction.
I might add, it does make me feel more protected from rouge judges upholding the likes of San Fransisco mayors, if you know what I mean.
Changed his mind?
Amending a state constitution, like amending the Federal constitution, is not a straightforward task. Fred is a Federalist and he is acting as a Federalist. Let the state legislatures enact legislation properly defining 'marriage'. It can also be addressed on the Federal level, but Fred's Federalist beliefs rightly tell him this is the place to start.
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.