Posted on 10/04/2007 12:49:47 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbn.com ...
‘So be it’ was used before Christianity existed.
The word ‘moron’ is also used by Christians. Would you like to know to whom it is applied?
then I remember we are up against Satan HERself. Anyone pushing for a third party just doesn't get it, what we are up against here.
Sure, get as personal as you like.
Anytime people like you try to speak for Christians, it’s personal.
Again you have not once proved any of you claims. I spoke for myself and I stand by what I said 100%. Your the person getting personal as far as I can tell. Lying and implying I'm an moron without one backing up you accusations.
If you don't like that I said "the offended here is likely to be Christians". Then "so be it"...
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
A quick look through your posting history shows some interesting fruit...
If you think Romney has a chance at energizing the Christian vote, open your eyes to the real Romney here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1905386/posts?page=20#20
Are you speaking for the Christians?
Most Christians understand the word hypocrite.
Nope. However, I’m a Yankee who lived in South Ga. for 9 years and I do have a few issues with some of the good ole boys down there but it ISN’T related to past issues.
I did not say that slavery was mentioned in the constitution, I said slavery was prohibited in the original constitution because of it’s failure to satisfy due process.
According to you.. Dr. Dodson...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1905681/posts?page=34#34
If you bothered to look at those videos you would notice the radio host was challenging Romney with what some Christians were saying about him..
So again your inference is BS.
I would wager most of your posts are BS if I cared to search them.
If you want to modify your statements to ‘some’ Christians, then I would have no problem with that as I would think it likely true.
The problem with people like you is in the usage ‘Christians’ as opposed to the more accurate ‘Some Christians’.
Nope, the operative word might be "informed" Christians if one was needed. Unfortunately as you can tell by who dug up the video, Christians are getting the word out and all your name calling is not putting the genie back in the bottle.
Your posts are not informative. To call yourself an ‘informed’ anything is laughable.
Dragging out anything by Karen Cross is beyond worthless. She is a well known and documented political whore when it comes to backing Democrats who say they are pro-life but never vote that way over Republican solid pro-lifers if money or power is involved, all for the sake of political expediency. She has less than zero credibility and National Right To Life has been slouching towards the left since she and her ilk have risen to the leadership. It is about time for a GOA version of NRL. And this whole “let some states kill babies if they want, so be it” might just be the last nail in the coffin.
In those days, slaves were PROPERTY, and were seen by law as such. You CANNOT judge past history according to todays moral standards.
Even today, there is a class of people who are not accorded the full set of rights protected by the Constitution--prisoners in the legal system. They lose virtually all (if not all) civil rights until their sentences are completed, and don't recover all of those even then. They are accorded only those rights granted by statute law.
Until the passage of the 13th Amendment, that was the case for slaves.
Actually, he's right. Read your Bible. Early Christianity had no real problem with the existence of slavery, saying only that both slave and master were equal in the eyes of God. Homosexuality was considered a mortal sin even then.
Not buying it. Classifying human beings as property is a torured rational whether it be in 1850, 1950, or 2050.
the MSM either went stealth or reported polls that showed marriage amendment races were tight or “unlikely to pass”.
Then when voters entered the privacy of the voting booth they passed marriage amendments by overwhelming margins.
You sure do like to call Karen Cross a whore a lot even though when I’ve asked you several times for evidence of this, you failed to produce any. Of course she is going to endorse whomever has the pro-life record versus someone who may only say they are pro-life but have no record to prove it. She represents a pro-life group after all.
Sorry, but you're still guilty of judging the past through today's eyes. That you choose to deny what were the accepted societal mores of the day just shows your ignorance. Remember, the Republicans of the day had another word in front of their party name---they were actually called the "Radical Republicans", because their views were considered out of the mainstream. That those views eventually became the accepted mainstream viewpoint doesn't change the actual legal situation of the day and time.
Whether you "buy it" or not doesn't change the actual history of the times.
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.