Posted on 09/07/2007 10:41:59 AM PDT by Josh Painter
Fred is a self-professed long time federalist and by definition that means he supports limited government. You don't get more conservative than that. Fred wants to resurrect Reagan's Executive Order #12612, which ordered each government entity look at ways to adhere to the Founder's ideas of original intent, aka. federalism. I think Reagan would have stood with Fred`s take on this issue. Again, in the current political environment.
Federalism
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to restore the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution and to ensure that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the Executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Look, every Republican supported DOMA back then. Good thing, but given the persistence of the gay activists and the odds of hitting a judicial-activist and wimp/liberal legislature combo, the odds are increasing that it wont be enough. And lets not forget that “Romer v Evans” is hanging over our necks on this; a really liberal activist USSC could do to the *NATION* what the Mass. supreme court did to Massachusetts. 2 more Hillary USSC picks and it might happen.
Here’s the rub: None of the REAL issues of gay marriage crossing state lines are fixed by Fred’s Amendment. Only the issue of state judges run amok is addressed, -— which BTW the states are the ones to properly deal with, and for the most part HAVE been dealing with it, by passing state-level Amendments. Iowa never got to it, hence this wacky ruling, but most states already have.
Bottom-line: His amendment fixes the wrong part of the problem. The problem is ...
1) 14th Amendment abused to enforce equality wrt “gay marriage”
2) “Full, faith and credit” trumping DOMA
3) Reality of people moving state-to-state and carrying court issues with them
“a compromise if you will -— that keeps his federalism in line with the Founders original intent.” I find it nothing of the sort. his idea:
1) Doesn’t solve the problem
2) Violates federalism by directly targetting state government specifically, more meddling than FMA
3) Splits further into another competing approach, fracturing our energy which should be behind ONE, MAIN WAY TO PROTECT MARRIAGE. The ONE MAIN WAY is the FMA.
Fred’s half-baked amendment approach is a non-starter and fuzzes up the issue more. It’s actually a step backward from the previous anti-FMA position of “lets wait until we really need it.” So, the more I think about it, the more disappointed I am he went this way.
We all need to support the FMA.
“Actually, when you get right down to it, government has no business regulating or licensing any kind of marriage; gay, straight, multi-species, group, or whatever.”
Nonsense, utter nonsense.
This is the one thing we have Government for: Define the nature of contracts and regulate our respective rights and responsibilities under them, and use the law to enforce those responsibilities and protect those rights. Marriage is specific institution that has been established in law for millenia.
Marriage has been defined as a legal institution since the Justinian Law of 500AD as one man and one woman, and a number of legal constructs around marriage are embedded in Christian Canon Law, common law, and legislative law.
Simple basic and fundamental things like the relations of parents to children, inheritance, and ownership-in-common of the property of married couples.
Your comment is as absurd as saying that govt has no business stopping property crimes.
“I didn’t need a State-issued license when I signed a contract for my cell phone service”
- The fact that the contract *IS* legally binding and can be taken to court when needed punctures a hole in your argument. Government *is* involved even there, so this “get the Govt out of it” is complete and utter folly.
Anyway, the gay activists want to abolish traditional marriage and destroy the civilizational capital that we’ve built up over 1500 years in defining it and leveraging it in supporting the family as an institution.
Without marriages, the raising of children in society becomes weakened. Social morality becomes frayed.
And you want to go along with this. I pity our next generation and our civilization if your fallacious view takes hold.
“A marriage contract between consenting adults should be looked upon as is any other contract between consenting adults.” — Maybe you can simply convince gay couples that it is unimportant and they will stop trying to crash the one-man-one-woman version of it.
“why did I need a license when I married my wife? “ - Just a guess: Your wife didn’t want to have a casual ‘shack up’ relationship and is above that kind of thing.
Unless Fred is publicly calling for the abolition of the Dept of Education, he’s less of a Federalist than I am, and I will consider his Federalism as only an occasional and not consistent and fundamental position.
Right. I'm very disappointed in this statement. The pandering has begun.
At the time, that was a case which current CJ John Roberts worked on as a lawyer to the satisfaction of the "Romer" side. I know, I've lived in Colorado since the 1970`s. The world isn't perfect, my FRiend.
You're preaching to the choir. I think your rhetoric calling for passage of legislation, namely a FMA, is commendable and I agree with you. As I posted to you: "Conservatives need to take what we can get on these hot button social issues, all the while keeping up unrelenting pressure on our elected officials."
Having said all that, knocking your head against a brick wall serves no good purpose. Its unrealistic. Fred’s approach is not a "half-baked" approach. But it too has little chance of getting passed through the Constitution`s amendment process anytime soon. Fred simply wanted to clear up any confusion on his politics. Bottom line, Fred opposes same sex marriages, but he believes federalism trumps more big federal government intrusion, on what is a private matter between one man and one woman.
This is the best you're gonna get from Fred. Right now, the choices available are the liberal Giuliani, the flipper Romney or conservative Fred. I think when we conservatives really get down to it, Fred is the best option today. Unless you like Hillary Rotten, Osama Obama, or Mister Hair.
Tell us, what fundamental, reactionary absolutist do you support?
Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said he wasn’t good enough for me. I merely said that unless he is for abolishing the Dept of Education, his invocation of the Federalism concept is selective. This should be obvious. I could add a bunch more other things, like S-CHIP program, highway funding with strings, regulation of higher education, OSHA, welfare programs etc. which are a far greater violation of Federalism than FMA could conceivably be.
I am not thrilled at all when ‘federalism’ is used as an excuse to undermine principled conservative positions.
So let’s see if I got this....
First: NO Federal Constitutional Amendment... because that would be... what?.. Anti-Fredralist ??
Second: One state can say YES to Gay Marriage and another say NO.... Uhm...OK... then Neither state has to honor the other’s law on the matter ??
Maybe Fred missed his US CON 101... but we have this little concept known as “FULL FAITH AND CREDIT”.
Which... if we follow HIS thinking would have to be Overturned by....oh gee... someone help me out here... perhaps... Oh, I dunno.... a Federal Constitutional Amendment!??
DOH !!
Wouldn't the federal law be required to cover D.C.?
Either way, the states would have to approve the amendment.
Romer vs. Evans
Justice Scalia
[May 20, 1996]
The United States Congress, by the way, required the inclusion of these anti polygamy provisions in the constitutions of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah, as a condition of their admission to statehood. See Arizona Enabling Act, 36 Stat. 569; New Mexico Enabling Act, 36 Stat. 558; Oklahoma Enabling Act, 34 Stat. 269; Utah Enabling Act, 28 Stat. 108. (For Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, moreover, the Enabling Acts required that the anti polygamy provisions be “irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said State”—so that not only were “each of [the] parts” of these States not “open on impartial terms” to polygamists, but even the States as a whole were not; polygamists would have to persuade the whole country to their way of thinking.) Idaho adopted the constitutional provision on its own, but the 51st Congress, which admitted Idaho into the Union, found its constitution to be “republican in form and . . . in conformity with the Constitution of the United States.” Act of Admission of Idaho, 26 Stat. 215 (emphasis added). Thus, this “singling out” of the sexual practices of a single group for statewide, democratic vote—so utterly alien to our constitutional system, the Court would have us believe—has not only happened, but has received the explicit approval of the United States Congress.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1039.ZD.html
I believe that he added a qualification earlier in this debate that it might become necessary if the courts started to rule against state laws protecting traditional marriage.
Yes he did.
I didn't. Just going by your own remarks. You sounded opposed to Fred`s candidacy. Now you seem to be hedging your rhetoric. Okay, that's good to see. Thanks.
US Senator`s make a whole lot of votes. I'd say conservative Congressmen in general, vote their values, beliefs, and principles as often as possible. Sometimes they may vote in a way that is more of a compromise. A Senator running for POTUS is open to harsh criticism because of his/her less than perfect voting record.
Since Fred wants to resurrect Reagan's Executive Order #12612, reimplimenting federalism, I'd say he supports abolishing the Department of Education. Never heard him make such a remark, but that would be my educated opinion.
Wow. That’s a real salvo against those arguing for same sex marriage.
“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.”
What he is proposing is not “Federalism” either. He is wanting to “interfere” with state processes by federal processes. I wished he would just admit that “Federalism” is a good principle for many things, but not all, and just support the marraige protection ammendment to the constitution. At least he should pledge to use the power of the presidency to put a halt on the homosexual agenda.
I like Senator Thompson, I will probably vote for him in the primary. However, I would be so much more enthusiastic and provide financial support if he would just stop hiding behind “federalism” and help us put a stop to the legitamization of homosexuality. I wished he would pledge to scrap “don’t ask and don’t tell” and go back to the pre-Clinton stance of “homosexuals are incapatible with the military.” And stomp to pieces any that disagree.
Perhaps it should be made a little more broad and encompassing to restrain state judges from usurping a republican state government in general, rather than making it specific to gay "marriage."
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.