Posted on 10/29/2007 7:04:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
CONCORD, N.H. — Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson told New Hampshire voters Monday that efforts in some states to recognize same-sex marriage are a "judge-made controversy."
Civil unions will become legal in New Hampshire on Jan. 1, allowing gays to apply for the same rights as married people. Same-sex unions from other states also will be recognized in New Hampshire if they were legal in the state where they were performed.
Questioned about civil unions after a speech at a dental benefits company, Thompson said, "I would not be in support of that."
But when he elaborated, he switched from civil unions, which give gays legal rights equivalent to those of married couples, to same-sex marriages, which are legal only in neighboring Massachusetts.
"Basically so far, it is a judge-made controversy," Thompson said. "No state or governor has signed off on such legislation on the state level that has endorsed marriage between the same sexes. There may have been a couple of courts that said the Constitution of their states has required that, so it's a judicially made situation as far as I am concerned."
Massachusetts' highest court ruled in 2003 that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. But high courts in several other states have refused to follow suit, including Maryland last month. Cases are pending in Connecticut and California.
Edward Paul, an employee of the Delta Dental Plans Association, asked the question Monday, but had trouble being understood.
"I'm proud to say that in January 2008 New Hampshire has passed a law facilitating civil unions here. ... What is your belief for federal civil unions to be passed?" Paul asked.
"Soviet Union?" Thompson responded.
"No, civil unions," Paul said.
"Oh. No, I would not be in support of that," Thompson said.
Paul said he wasn't surprised, or impressed.
"I think he needs to do more homework on whatever state he's in and I don't think he did on that question," said Paul. He said he is a registered independent who plans to vote in the Democratic presidential primary.
Thompson's campaign has said the candidate would let states decide whether to sanction civil unions. He has supported federal action to protect states from having to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. As a Tennessee senator, he voted against legislation to prohibit job discrimination based on sexual orientation.
On Monday, Thompson also filed the paperwork to get on the ballot for the GOP primary in New Hampshire.
“Soviet Union?” Thompson responded.
Love this response.
Go Fred Go.
Fred is mistaken.
There was one Governor who did enact such marriges, and he did it without the legislature even making such a law.
That man was:
Willard Mitt Romney.
I’m not opposed to homosexual civil unions. As far as I’m concerned this is a state-by-state issue to be decided by the legislatures.
My only beef is that the word “marriage” should not be applied/used in the legal language, thereby protecting religious institutions that do not recognize homosexual marriages from lawsuits claiming discrimination based on sexual orientation. As long as said religious institutions recognize the right of homosexuals to live unharrassed, if said homosexuals refrain from harrassing said religious institutions.
In other words, live and let live, and let God sort out the sinners later.
So this guy thinks Fred should lie depending on what state he is in or who he is talking to, just like all the other candidates. What a jerk.
Geez! Can I have a little more info on that? Thanks!
And bingo was his namo.
Civil Unions are just a scam to sneak same-sex "marriage" into the law. First, there's no difference between these unions and marriages, except in name. Second, once these unions are established, the left will say, "Hey, we've had civil unions for ten years now, and they're really the same thing as marriage, so why not just make it official and expand them all into marriages?"
GO FRED GO!
Good grief. I support Fred, but he sounds like a bumbling moron.
Soviet Union????
“I would not support that.”
That is his eloquent response.
One-liners?????
This is really frightening.
Uhm, I suspect these 'some people' can see that the 2008 election hasn't taken place yet.
Fred apparently needs to be taught that he has to cowtow to the 2% or less of the population that’s queer....
LOL
His lisp required a repeat of his question.
LLS
More are seeing it every day. Faith!
LLS
Yep, just don’t use the force of the government to force me to pretend that a couple of turd burglars are a family.
there is nothing frightening about a straight answer. no pun intended.
Get used to it.
I saw it. Lame speech. Boring.
Wow. What a major error by Fred if what you say is true. Not that I’m surprised.
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.