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.
Maybe I misunderstood his statement. I do not see how he can allow states to call homosexual unions marriage without getting into federal issues like taxes and benefits. If he means they can offer state benefits under another name so that it doesn't violate the federal definition then we are talking about the same thing as the FMA. If we are talking about getting rid of the federal DOMA in favor of something which allows states to grant homo marriage including federal benefits, then that's bunk and I won't support it. The federal definition needs to stay as it is.