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.

[ejonesie22]

Well there is pissant and Paperdoll...

I don’t totally disagree with you, but I think banning the lot of them is too much. Mitt, despite his failings, is a viable candidate at least for now. He is playing the party line (for now). FR is a conservative site no matter what stripe you are. For Paul folk, well they ain’t conservative. Some of Mitts folks are, and have bought the idea he is. We need to be helpful and mindful that they are losing ground and fast.

They are lashing out because he, and they, have invested much time and money, and thought that they had it made some months ago since Rudy was the only real competition, and even if Mitt were playing himself, he is still more conservative by several factors. Now that Fred is in, there is an actual mainline conservative in the hunt. That’s gotta suck. You are sitting “pretty” (pun intended) and the damn actor shows up...

[rogue yam]

Please explain to me how if homosexual marriage is legalized in a few states, it won’t be forced on the rest of the states?

I don't think anyone can say in advance what would happen if one or more States legalized homosexual marriage. It would depend on too many variables. But if it does happen (and I doubt it will anytime soon) then we can all deal with it then (perhaps by passing a Constitutional Amendment forbidding homosexual marriage, perhaps some other way). Fred seems to not want to solve the problem before it occurs. I think that's perfectly sensible. There is no consensus for a federal marriage amendment right now and the President has no Constitutional role in the process anyway. Why does Fred need to be a lightning rod on this issue right now?

[mnehring]

Hey Jim,
Is it starting to smell like HSWs around here?

[MEGoody]

But the words “so be it” may be just a tad bit flip for social conservatives.

Sure, without the sentence that follows. Gotta read the whole quote.

[mnehring]

But knee jerkers don’t like to do that.. they are acting like Harry Reid and Media Matters going after Rush.

[N3WBI3]

LOL!

Yea we have Mitt pulling ‘let the states hash it out on abortion’, Rudy who is for Abortion and Gay Marriage, and Thompson pulling ‘let the states hash it out on Gay marriage’

Lets take a guess at what Evangelicals will find the most palatable position?

[rogue yam]

However, the majority of a President’s power is informal.

Tell that to Saddam Hussein.

[longtermmemmory]

It does and it did.

Full faith and credit did require the judges (PLURAL) recognize the common law marriage from the other states. (PLURAL)

Wishful thinking does not change facts.

Thompson is flat out wrong on the full faith and credit issue. Note: a judge need not even touch “marriage” just full faith and credit alone does the job.

[ejonesie22]

Actually I don’t know.

Ok, I did find this.....

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/timeline.html

[mnehring]

But again, it doesn’t require that say, Texas allow its citizens to be married under common law status because Louisiana does.

Kind of curious however, as to why you seem to be hanging your hat on this issue?

[rogue yam]

"Slavery or rather the prohibition of it is guaranteed in the constitution, however, the judges and legislatures of the day chose to ignore and circumvent it’s abolition."

And where, precisely, in the Constitution, is that prohibition to be found????

Thirteenth Amendment, ratified Dec. 6, 1865. That's what my copy says, anyway. I don't know what that other guy's copy says.

[Petronski]

It is slavery to perversity.

Sophistry.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Well, Thompson takes the same position on abortion by opposing the Human Life Amendment.

Let's get real. You and I both know such an amendment won't see the light of day. CA, NY, and IL, in addition to other liberal Mid-Western and New England states, will shoot it down.

[MEGoody]

Does anyone know...is he opposed to Roe vs Wade, wanting to see it overturned

From what I've read, Fred would like to see Roe v Wade overturned and have the decision-making go back to the states.

[Petronski]

Not only does Fred oppose federal prohibition of abortion, he doesn’t even support prohibition of abortion in his own state. He does not believe that life begins at conception. He’s pro-choice!

You are LYING.

[rogue yam]

He’s pro-choice!

You know that's not true about Fred so you shouldn't say it.

[Petronski]

Do you believe a woman should be imprisoned for having an abortion?

[longtermmemmory]

If a couple is common law married in another state under that states common law marriage process and THEN moves to texas and divorces, texas has to accept that.

Happens in FL, GA, LA, Miss. and Colorado, Washington State.

yes, full faith and credit DOES require the acceptance.

litigated and done.

just missing the t-shirt.

[ejonesie22]

Jan. 2, 2006 Boston Globe reports Romney issued special Governor’s ceremonial marriage licenses to 189 same-sex couples in 2005 (including to homosexual activist state senator), claiming he did not refuse because he was evenly applying the “statute”. [Note: There is no new statute establishing same-sex marriage.]

And then...

March 10-14, 2006 Romney says laws require Catholic Charities not to discriminate against same-sex parents in its adoption placements [but there’s only an administrative regulation]. He says same-sex couples have “a legitimate interest” in adopting children.

And then...

Oct. 15, 2006 Romney addresses nationally broadcast “Liberty Sunday” (Family Research Council) event in Boston. Blames SJC for Mass. problems, says we need an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people regardless of different choices they make, and as a nation we must reject discrimination and bigotry. Calls for support of federal marriage amendment.

So I can’t tell where he stands. He’ll sign off on it, let them adopt but want’s a marriage protection amendment....

[mnehring]

That is so interesting. So you are saying that Mitt Romney actually was instrumental in making gay marriage legal in Massachusetts? Wow, that puts all this speculating and guessing about other candidates in perspective when compared to candidates who actually do it.

I guess you learn something new every day.