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 ...
Damn, beat me to it....
It’s time to show these Mittwitts the door.
“Congress shall not intrude upon the sovereignty of the states.” However, this is simply not what it says.
It does not say that but it implies it.
Federalism is by definition opposed to arbitrarily increasing the size, scope, or authority of the Federal government by constitutional amendment or otherwise especially when said infringes on what have historically been issues administered by the state.
From a constitutional standpoint it would actually be much more consistent to argue for an amendment that guarantees all people regardless of sex be guaranteed the right to marry—but that debates for another day.
Suffice it to say that any amendment to the constitution that increases Fed power and reduces state power absent some powerful and demonstable societal benefit or grievance is antithetical to the principals of true Federalism.
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.
What Fred is saying is that the issue is not currently in the Constitution so it is inherently left to the states. From a legal point of view, each state could determine their own laws in this regard.
IMO, abortion should currently be in the same state and slavery should have been in that state before the 13th Amendment.
This does not mean that slavery, abortion, or gay marriage are morally correct practices. It just means they are/were not federal issues without specific constitutional amendments.
Regarding the 13th, Senator Trumbull (a sponsor) said the intent of the amendment was to "take this question [of emancipation] entirely away from the politics of the country. We relieve Congress of sectional strifes . . . .’’ (See http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/031.pdf, Page 4).
This highlights why we still need amendments regarding life and marriage to similarly take these issues away from the politics of the country and relieve Congress of strife regarding these issues. Until such amendments are ratified, each state is free to enact immoral laws according to the desires of their elected officials.
With the country closely divided on these issues, passage and ratification of these amendments is not likely in the near future. The situation will likely get worse and more contentious until a Leader inspires a change of heart in enough citizens to demand that Congress address the issue.
“I do not believe abortion should be criminalized.” - Fred Thompson
Btw, does Fred support abolishing the IRS and income taxes? Does he support the fair tax? Does he even support the flat tax?
It’s not like the Paulinati, though more than a few are superficial and petty in their attacks. But we give as good as we get.
Putting the fact that the 14th Amendment has been greatly expanded beyond its original meaning, there is no question that it meant to empower the federal government to trump state law in the abolishment of slavery.
Also the 14th amendment was meant to empower the federal legislature, not any part of the judiciary, to pass the specific laws that implemented this abolishment.
I'm not sure what corresponding part of the U.S. Constitution would apply to marriage.
It was Congress that used the 14th amendment to abolish slavery. It is activist federal judges that continue to misuse the 14th amendment to usurp the will of the people in the states in vast and arbitrary ways.
Thompson IS ALREADY IN TROUBLE and I think this is the issue that is doing it.
This is Thompsons “Amnesty” moment. Just like the republican leadership was deaf, dumb, and blind to the backlash on the amnesty bill; Thompson is being deaf, dumb, and blind on the marriage issue.
The marriage protection issue is a HUGE voting booth issue. The Supermajority passage rates speak volumes that people hold this issue in quiet importance. They may not tell pollsters, the MSM will not report it, but this is hurting Thompson BIG TIME.
He would be #1 on the charts but for this hard breaking stubborness.
If he simply comes out and says the recent cases have changed the legal landscape and a more firm amendment must stand then he has a smooth sailing.
The ONLY reason I can think he does not want to dump the unsupportable federalism argument is that he has some closet homosexuals somewhere on his staff and this is part of the donor deal worked out.
It is slavery to perversity.
Regardless of whether you like the comparison, Fred's plan would allow a liberal state legislature to force the federal government to recognize and reward homosexual marriage. In that way it is different from slavery, since as far as I know the federal government did not have to reward slavery.
I would compare the issue to self-evident truths that no government has a right to ignore. The nature of human family and the way in which new generations come into the world is a self-evident truth that states should not have the right to redefine and ignore.
Fred voted for the DOMA. Why has he changed his mind about the federal definition of marriage? If even one state legislature votes to recognize homo marriage then the federal gov't is obligated to treat those marriages like all other marriages under Fred's plan. Frankly I think it might give automatic recognition to Massachusetts marriages since the court forced the legislature to act and those bozos obeyed. Fred's amendment might overturn the court but it wouldn't nulify the stupid legislature. And before long courts will start recognizing the obvious, that the only difference between a marriage and a civil union is the name, so the court will claim that the legislature already voted in favor of homosexual marriage albeit by a different title.
You also left out the next paragraph of that article.
But if Thompson was conflicted about the issue, his voting record didn't show it. He joined with conservatives to block federal funding for abortions and supported a partial-birth-abortion ban. National Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, gave him a 100 percent rating. Recently, Thompson has suggested a personal shift on the issue. He told Fox News that he's always been against abortion, but that the issue has "meant a little more" since he saw the sonogram of his 3-year-old daughter. "I'll never feel that same way again," Thompson said. "Not only is it in my head, it's in my heart now."
..and from the second link...
'Record trumps rhetoric'
Thompson himself appears befuddled over how views expressed in the early 1990s came to be characterized as advocating abortion rights.
"Although I don't remember it, I must have said something to someone as I was getting my campaign started that led to a story," Thompson was quoted as saying in an April article in the conservative political magazine Weekly Standard. "Apparently, another story was based upon that story, and another was based upon that, concluding I was pro-choice."
It seems to me you are reading into this what you want to read into this. I suggest you take the advice of the second article- 'Record trumps rhetoric'
The Shrimp Supporters are just fringe, the Mittwitts are the real menace at FR with the constant lies they put out about their own candidate’s record and disgusting trash they assault Fred and Jeri with. This thread was posted by one of their lead ‘bots.
Wow, this is a reach, even for you.
All Fred has to do to clear this up is say, “I believe life begins at conception, and I support the criminalization of abortion.”
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
The issue has been litigated in divorce courts in most all the states.
A common law marriage valid in one state WILL and SHALL be recognized in another state for purposes of dissolution and divorce.
Nice try but 100% wrong. I just love rocket scientists with those types of view on my opposition side.
The most common scenario is when a long term marriage of the 6 remaining common law marriage states moves to another state. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT requires the marriage be recognized and the courts HAVE HELD ACORDINGLY.
Federalism in this context is not just wrong, it is ABSURD. A law student would be flunked out for suggesting similarly in a constitutional law class.
We also have the federal issues of immigration, taxation, and inheritance.
The Federalism argument is a joke and supporting it stinks of a different interest group pay off.
Good grief. Pure speculation, of the paranoid type.
And if Rudy gets the nomination, the election will be over long before November. Recent polling in my own state of TN, with Fred as the nominee, he wins by perhaps as high as 20% against Hillary, but with Rudy, he and Hillary are tied.
I still would be wary of dumping them. Romney has fans among so good conservatives and Republicans. He is an attractive if not solid Republican candidate It is easier to blow off Paul folks, they ain’t right in the head...
Now as far as some Mittwitts individually....
I share your concern.
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.