New Fred Thompson Video on Gay Marriage: "So Be It"

CBNnews.com ^ | October 4, 2007 | David Brody

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

The Brody File is working around the clock and this time has found video of Fred Thompson talking this week to the Des Moines Register editorial board. He’s explaining his view of a federal marriage amendment. This video has not been out there before. It is now, courtesy of The Brody File. Watch it here.

Part of the transcription reads:

“A judge couldn’t impose this (gay marriage) state or federal unless they had the acquiescence or unless the state legislature moved on its own to put it into law. If a state chose to recognize it (gay marriage) and the Governor signed off and signed it into legislation so be it. My opinion would be that that would be a very bad thing and a very surprising thing.”

His position here is not new. But the words “so be it” may be just a tad bit flip for social conservatives. The marriage issue could very well be a problem for Fred Thompson with many Evangelical voters. I know that his view is not well received with certain Evangelical groups. Comments like "so be it" don't help.

You see, let me try and explain what’s going on here. The millions of religious conservatives who are adamantly for a strict federal marriage amendment believe that marriage IS a one size fits all approach. Thompson is trying the federalism track here but here’s where he gets into trouble. Let’s take slavery for example. Hypothetically, if a state legislature approves slavery and a Governor signs it into law, then “so be it”? Of course not.

[Shortstop7]

LOL. This could possibly be the most ridiculous “hit piece” ever posted.

Ah well, so be it.....

[dschapin]

All I was saying that was that Thompson’s refusal to support a human life life Amendment due to his ultra-federalist views was just as immoral as those people who would have left slavery up to the states. Actually denying someone the right to live is even worse than enslaving them but in both cases human beings are clearly being deprived of their God given rights. So, to claim that Federalism prevents you from taking a clearly constitutional action (Amending the Constitution) to protect innocent human life is indefensible.

[traderrob6]

Specifically they did not, however most of them abhorred it.

Whether it being specifically not addressed was intentional or not does not change the fact that the 5th under any REASONABLE interpretation would not allow “the peculiar institution” to exist. It was only a tortured rational that allowed it to pass constitutional muster.

The 13th was a vehicle by which they could remove any possible interpretive challenge. It was a undeniable and declarative exclamation point on the subject and it removed all doubt in the minds of the populace what was the law of the land.

That being said the Supreme Court could have used the 5th as justification for the unconstitutionality of slavery however, it would not have carried either the declarative impact or the indelibility of a a constitutional amendment

[papasmurf]

The Constitution is pretty clear on abortion...

There were few laws on abortion in the United States at the time of independence, except the common law adopted from England, which held abortion to be legally acceptable if occurring before quickening. James Wilson, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, explained as follows:

With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.

FRed is supporting the Constitution. Remember, the States were preexisting to the Federal, as such, the U.S. Constitution did not have a need to define or explain federalism in any one section.
Although, it does say that powers that the Constitution does not give to the national government or forbid to the states, reserved powers, belong to the people or to the states. State powers include the right to legislate on divorce, marriage, and public schools. Powers reserved for the people include the right to own property and to be tried by a jury, or words similar.

[Petronski]

No you are being obtuse, and the only thing idiotic are your posts.

Bzzzt. Wrong again. I'm not obtuse, your comparison is idiotic, and you show every sign of being an idiot yourself.

BTW youngster - I’ve probably been around much longer than you.

Irrelevant, gramma. Chew your Geritol and go to bed. Leave reality to the sentient.

[wardaddy]

I doubt most of them abhorred it since a fair number of them owned slaves .......and most represented colonies/states where slavery was legal...including the most influential like Madison, Franklin, Jefferson and Washington.

They were simply unwilling to deal with it. They had just fought a war over poor representation, unfair taxation and colonial occupation excesses and were none eager to now tackle slavery.

Though it might have been a good time since the cotton gin was right around the corner to be invented by New Englander Eli Whitney and that was to cause a slaver boom

Again I say they would have addressed slavery had they wished.

Another great document...The Bible does not rail much against slavery either.

It was a more common than not fact of life for most of the worlds inhabitants up until fairly recently...that or serfdom or tribal subjugation. Freedom as we know it is fairly new.

You can maybe tell I’m not one of these folks who views slavery as an end all or Holocaust like some.

[traderrob6]

“I doubt most of them abhorred it”

I beg to disagree.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=122

[RockinRight]

You’re not even a good liar, Joe.

[wardaddy]

This is a sincere question...

Is there a group of you guys here who like to dominate all modern conservative thought through the slavery or black experience prism?

I know a number of you guys ....usually to be found on South bashing threads.

Your original comment was that slavery is mentioned in the original Constitution but it isn’t and you know that.

Now you want to bolster the intent opinion from a black Republican Thaddeus Stevens admiration society type site whereby you want to quote that a number of slave owning signers of the Constitution really didn’t like slavery....maybe not but “abhor” is a strong word don’t you think.

Had they abhorred it they woulda let it go but being human and living in an age where it was rather common they decided to not part with uncompensated emancipation of property and the political circumstances they feared to come from that emancipation which still haunt us.

It’s funny, you guys pop up everywhere. Do ya’ll sit around and look for ways to infiltrate here and purge Southern cultural Conservatives you find a bit too unreceptive to South demonization and revisionism.

Let’s talk about slavery in the North nest or Order number 11 in the Civil War.

I can see where this is headed. Dangit...some eveil white guy with a southern accent went and screwed up all this noble intent....and a Democrat too....but wasn’t ol Tom a democrat too?

It gets old and it’s often disingenuous and tiring.

Thanks for playing.

You know, we already have wideawakes where they eat this stuff up...they live for it

[dschapin]

The 10th Amendment merely reserves to the states powers which are not delegated to the federal government. If a new Amendment delegates more power to the federal government this would not violate the 10th Amendment - Not to mention that if it did conflict it would merely supercede the 10th Amendment. So, the 10th Amendment is irrelevant to any discussion about a Constitutional Amendment.

Also, the 14th Amendment has dramatically shifted the balance of power between the State and Federal Government. The 14th Amendment says that no “state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The 14th Amendment then gives Congress the power to enforce this Amendment through legislation. So, a fair reading of the 14th Amendment would actually indicate that Congress already has the power to prohibit abortion by simply passing a statute.

[AndyTheBear]

Arguably, the judicial activism of the Taney court in Dred Scott was a major lead to the Civil War, and subsequently, the 13th A.

I suppose an infamous act may inspire a backlash for justice. Personally I would give more moral credit to those leading the backlash. Evil is cheap, goodness is what we should prize.

[Hostage]

The President can propose an amendment be introduced. In the drafting of an amendment proposal he can confer with justices, legislators and the executive administration as to merits, conformance and context.

But should the Congress seek to amend the Constitution without presidential involvement, they can do so and will be restricted only insofar as the States fail to ratify their amendment.

The President carries strong influence throughout the process both with Congress and the States.

Fred Thompson is against gay marriage and civil unions. He has said so publicly. He knows the votes are not there for a gay marriage ban amendment nor are they likely to be. Many who voted for DOMA do not think such an amendment is necessary. So the issue of a gay marriage ban amendment is politically dead. He also reasons the federal government should not be involved in such matters, it is for States to decide.

However, Fred Thompson has correctly zeroed in on the real danger to marriage and that is the federal judiciary. He knows DOMA is just one federal judge decision away from having it struck down. This is why he is proposing via amendment to restrict the jurisdiction of federal judges in certain matters. This will protect the 45 states that have passed laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman from the decision of the judge who forced Massachusetts to recognize gay marriage, and having a federal judge force this decision on all states via Full Faith and Credit provisions of the Constitution.

There is a 46th state that is getting ready to pass a similar law restricting marriage between one man and one woman and the other 4 do not feel it necessary yet. This was said by Fred Thompson and he feels rightly that the people in the States will not allow perversion to attain normal status.

Founders of this country and its Constitution mentioned that the Republic would survive conditional on the morality of its people. They knew the Constitution could not be written to cover every class example of social morality so they defaulted to the condition of the People and their chaste behavior. If majorities in enough states want gay marriage, polygamy or publicly displayed orgies, there is nothing we can do about having those things become lawful except educate people by example. God is the final judge.

[Hostage]

Fred Thompson said legislatures can be voted out but not federal judges.

The votes are not there for a gay marriage amendment nor will they be as many who voted for DOMA will not vote for an amendment.

Fred’s recourse is to rein in the federal judges. If one looks closely, every social ill present today such as abortion and banning school prayer has been legally enabled by a federal judge.

Fred has said publicly that he is against gay marriage and civil unions.

[dirtboy]

However, Fred Thompson has correctly zeroed in on the real danger to marriage and that is the federal judiciary. He knows DOMA is just one federal judge decision away from having it struck down. This is why he is proposing via amendment to restrict the jurisdiction of federal judges in certain matters. This will protect the 45 states that have passed laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman from the decision of the judge who forced Massachusetts to recognize gay marriage, and having a federal judge force this decision on all states via Full Faith and Credit provisions of the Constitution.

Now, now, don't go confusing those who seek to make the perfect the enemy of the good - just as they would rather hold out for a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion over getting Roe overturned and putting it back to the states.

[trickyricky]

"Yeah, because gay marriage is so much like human bondage."

Homosexual interaction is a vile abomination in the sight of God.
There are few sins more heinous.
Slavery is terrible, but not even in the same class as homosexual interactions.

[LowOiL]

If unbelievers are offended, so be it (cf. Luke 14:3-4; John 5:8-16)

Thompson should learn "so be it" is not a term that one should take lightly. Especially in the sence that the offended here is likely to be Christians.

[Hostage]

Those that seek to make the perfect are losing, have been losing and show no penchant for doing anything different.

Once federal judges let the animals out of the barn, what will those sitting around contemplating the perfect do?

If in the future amendments banning gay marriage or abortion are passed, an amendment to restrict judges in the meantime will not interfere.

Gay marriage, school prayer ban, abortion and so on are only symptoms of the real disease which is an activist federal judiciary. The Left’s refuge is the federal judiciary, they inhabit it and they maintain it with control of law school faculties. An amendment to defang their power is brilliant.

[Hostage]

Where do people like you get the idea you speak for all Christians?

I can guarantee you are not speaking for Christians.

[dirtboy]

Slavery is terrible, but not even in the same class as homosexual interactions.

You are TRULY absurd with that comment.

[LowOiL]

Where do people like you get the idea you speak for all Christians? I can guarantee you are not speaking for Christians.

Where did I say I did? I point out that Fred uses a term that is widely known in Christian circles and you go weird personal. But as the verse foretold.. so be it.

If unbelievers are offended, so be it (cf. Luke 14:3-4; John 5:8-16)