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.
It's ok, though. Time will tell and truth will out. And won't you be shocked when it happens. Like I say, it's a shame Fred's not the guy. If conservative issues are the key, I don't get why you and others don't support Hunter. He's the best guy out there on the issues, isn't he? And yet socalled conservsatives by into the socalled first tier/second tier dichotomy when not a single vote has been cast. Sad.
Yes, states vote to ratify Constitutional Amendments, presidents do not...
“I think Fred uses federalism as the lazy man’s out. No sense being up to speed on anything. It’s all up to the states!”
It used to be that people had read the Constitution with enough comprehension to understand that it isn’t the President’s role to be micromanaging the country like a petty dictator. The president’s role SHOULD be simple, command the armies and veto all the crackpot legislation. You are looking for a Clintonian hyper-presidency, an absolute disaster to liberty.
“I am getting a little tired of his Federalism excuse, I really dont find it inspiring, “
You probably won’t find the Constitution very inspiring then either. Maybe a BigGovernment RINO like Mitt is more to your liking?
Instead of behaving like an informed conservative, you sound like a perpetually pi$$ed off 10 year old Duncanista. A juvenile! News flash -— Hunter`s candidacy never even got off the ground. He’s out of cash and just about out of time.
If enough conservatives ignore the most viable and reliable conservative running — Fred Thompson -— we’re gonna wind up getting Giuliani. Not what I want.
Put it this way: If you were hiring a manager for the Yankees, would you require that he have a very deep grasp of the game of baseball? Sure you would. Ideally a former player. Doesn't mean you want him to grab a bat and write himself in the lineup. But it doesn't mean the Wendy's night manager can do the job, either.
The result of the Civil War was the abolition of slavery not abolition of the states. The states are supposed to be able to set their policies so long as they don't violate the US Constitution. Federal and some state judges routinely ignore the tenth amementment and other parts of the constitution and impose their personal policy preferences on the states with absolutely no constitutional justification.
I favor giving issues back to the state legislatures. There is no reason why all issues should be decided at the national level. That's one of the reasons why politics is so polarized these days.
It’s so funny how someone can completely misrepresent another person’s views. That wasn’t very bright to tell me how I think and state it as if was a fact. If that’s the case, I can’t believe anything you have to say about either Fred or Mitt. It’s never a good idea to tell a person what you think that he or she thinks.
States vote to ratify Constitutional Amendments, presidents do not...
LOL. It's a circular argument. You're basically saying I'm not going to send Hunter money because he doesn't have any money. So you send money to the guy who DOES have money? I don't get it. I honestly don't get how a TV actor with nothing to show for himself is thrust into the lead among conservatives, when there's a real conservative in the race. It's just strange to me.
As for the rest of your post, look in the mirror. Name calling. Typical. I just don't get what makes people think Thompson is "viable." No votes have been cast. What are you basing the viability on? Fundraising? And yet, that's all speculative. He built up some hype over the summer, grabbed some dollars, and voila, he's a frontrunner?
I'm interested in substance. I realize that's immature. I will take your mature advice and accept that really it's just about finding a bandwagon with a lot of cash, and papering over anything unpleasant. Grab the pom poms, make the kool aid. It's how come nothing improves. You'll see.
We're not delusional.
It's not just judges. Presidents do it. Congress does it. Hell, they all do it. The so-called hero of the SCOTUS, Scalia, is absolutely off his rocker when it comes to the Commerce Clause. I think Clarence Thomas, nominated by the one term tax raiser, is the closest thing in all of DC to an actual Constitutionalist. But I'm probably mistaken there. He's probably soiled as well. They all are.
That will be tough to do in a state like mine (Oregon, believe it or not!) that defines marriage in the state constitution as between one man and one woman.
IIRC, every state where this has been on the ballot has passed a constitutional amendment such is this.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress...
Baloney. Politics were just as polarized during George Washington's administration. By the time Jefferson and Adams squared off, it was as ugly as ever. Jefferson had his own bought and paid for agenda driven newspaper. Nothing changes.
Yeah: )
Well said, Paleo Conservative.
Federalism is beyond the grasp of some folks.
Reread what Fred said.
He wasn't wrong.
The courts have gone crazy, NOT the legislatures...yet.
More ad hominem. How surprising. I'll have a good laugh at your expense when Fred falls flat. Sadly, though, that may not happen til the general election. Oh well, I'll drown my own sorrows in your dejection when the time comes.
Presidents do not vote on Constitutional Amendments, state legislatures vote to ratify them...
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.