****************
He is indeed.
Fred: he's the real thing.
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.
This hasn't materialized, in my view.
The suggestion that Fred’s attachment to federalism is a lazy man’s dodge is juvenile nonsense. Have you read any of what he has written on the subject? Consider his exchange with Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO last spring. Delve a bit in the Congressional Record for some of his speeches on the subject as a Senator. You are talking about a seriously smart lawyer who has given the structure of the Constitution considerable thought. Repeatedly claiming otherwise without citing any evidence or even arguing that Fred has been wrong about something is just dishonest and despicable.
Your other beef with Fred seems to be that you consider him an ineffective candidate. Here again you cite no basis for your conclusion; you seem to be adopting the New York Times’ views wholesale. What evidence is there that Fred is ineffective? Nobody has voted yet and the polls at this point are a very poor predictor of what will happen when people do.
We all have to make our best guess about how voters will respond to each candidate without the help of any meaningful hard data. You should be wary of sounding too certain that Fred won’t have broad appeal because events are likely to make you look extremely foolish.
When that happens, a lot of people here will be lining up to make you eat some of the words you are vomiting up today. Of course, if you like exposing yourself to ridicule, carry on.
Bump for ducklings!
Quack, Quack...
That's exactly how I read that guys statement! Fred is really ticking off those who want to be pandered to, isn't he!
****************
He is indeed.
Fred: he's the real thing.
Me too. :) I just got off the phone with a friend who has some insight into the Republican party. He and I are leaning toward the same candidate (FDT), yet he confirmed for me that Duncan Hunter is a good man as well, just probably not electable.
HA!!
Kinda hard to argue with that.
Sure must've pissed the homosexuals off, butt-good.
Fred was only being very political, even sensitive. He deliberately omitted an important detail, the judges making the *controversy*? They're well 99% queer, themselves.
...funny, that.
Knocking Fred, Mitt, Rudy, McCain et al will get hens pecking... it's not exclusive to Fred.
"Doesn't change what I think."
That's a two way street FRiend.
"And I wish when Fred fails that I could remember their screen names and come calling. But life's short and I won't bother on it."
You are right. Life is too short for such silliness.
Personally, the single most important reason by far that I support Thompson is because of his long-standing record on federalism.
—
Repeat LOUD and OFTEN................
He answered the question insanely short.
I like the guy, but I want a candidate who actually knows what he is talking about. I have ignored the media snipes at him up to this point, but that was a direct quote.
And, it seems the media sniping may be on target unfortunately.
He didn’t even SAY WHY he opposed unions/gay marriage.
Just that he wouldn’t support it.
That is scary for somebody running for president.
He didn’t give one though. All he said was obviously he wasn’t for it.
That was it. Nothing to try to get people to see why he thought that way, nothing to try to defend or even simply EXPLAIN his position at all.
If that is his way of debating, he will get KILLED if he is the nominee.
It is beyond terrible.
Why say more than you need to?
He’s saying his answer. There’s no reason for a 6-minute speech after every question.
You’re right.
I’m not voting for Fred because he’s too simple and lazy. Instead I’m voting for the northeastern liberal.
Yup. That’s the ticket.
No, he's not. There was never any LEGISLATION for Romney to sign. The Democrat controlled legislature dragged their feet long enough for the Supreme Judicial Court to force their decision on the citizens. What Romney did NOT do was fight it; don't think he thought he had the political support, though well over half of the voters opposed it.
We've been trying to get the chance to VOTE on it ever since, but the Democrats are STILL denying us the opportunity. The new Governor bribed five of them to change their votes in the most recent effort, so that the question would not be placed on the ballot.
“Huck” must be short for Huckabee.
Gov. Huckabee...you can’t compete with Fred. Give it up.
Seems like an enormous waste of time for a Presidential candidate who won't be involved in State decisions anyway.
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.