Thompson backs state bans on same-sex marriage

Palm Beach Post ^ | November 16, 2007 | George Bennett

[Josh Painter]

HOLLYWOOD, Fla. — Cautioning against a federal solution to the controversy over gay marriage, Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson on Friday applauded a Florida group for "taking care of business at home" by seeking a statewide ban on same-sex marriages.

Thompson, who along with other GOP hopefuls has aggressively courted social conservatives before Florida's Jan. 29 primary, spoke to a Florida Family Policy Council dinner audience of more than 300.

The group is trying to get a referendum on the 2008 Florida ballot defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman and forbidding recognition of any other type of union "that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof."

Thompson said the controversy over the definition of marriage is "a totally judicially-made problem" and drew applause when he blasted judges who "make it up as they go along."

In a break with some social conservatives, Thompson does not support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage. But he supports an amendment that would allow states to recognize such marriages only if they are approved by voters or legislatures rather than judges. Thompson's amendment would also specify that no state would have to recognize a same-sex marriage approved in another state.

While not specifically addressing the issue of a federal marriage amendment in his remarks Friday, Thompson told the group that the federal government is a "weak partner" that should not be relied upon.

"The best solution begins at home, and let's keep it that way," Thompson said. "That's why it's so important that people in this room and others that have joined you are doing what you're doing with this marriage amendment here in the state. You're not waiting for somebody else to take care of it. You're taking care of business at home..."

[Finny]

I know. I just thought it was kind of gracious of Saundra to point out that you were an exception. That was all I was saying. I disagree with her strongly on all things Romney, though!

[mission9]

Sorry Grasshopper, when I post a sentence, each word is emblematic of a series of mental choices, there could be several trains of thought upon which word launches your mental processes, like a giant switchback, or like the pit covered with branches and filled with sharpened stakes into which the rampaging elephant falls and dies impaled upon the stakes. The stakes of this election are high, and should be obvious to every wise elephant who never forgets.

Chess is an ancient game invented in India. On an Indian chessboard, the Rooks are Elephants. I just rooked you into thinking about Kentucky. Kentucky is another Bible Belt state, though outside of Fred’s previous electoral dominion, a state where Elephants win. By somehow thinking that this is a game of checkers, where you could jump on my “mistake,” I embarrassed you into braying about a mistake I did not make. Instead of admitting your mistake you tried to cover your error by challenging the thought train behind it. Now who is going to have to switchback?
In this election, the object is to win Nationally. In this chess game, Fred has proven to be a pawn. HE HAS BLOWN EVERY STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY. He has no game in Iowa, he has no game in New Hampshire, He has no game in Florida, and even South Carolina is not a Fred State. So you would have the objective observer trumpet this “success” of pro-life support for Fred in Hollywood?
Fred has only succeeded in dragging a National organization into the mistaken belief that giving up on a National agenda is a victory. He does this by playing to the vanity of a state organization, and their desire to raise money, and have a National news story because Fred has taken the time to help them raise money. 300 paying customers is an embarrassment. If it were 300 Spartans, they would kick the emissary of defeat into the pit of despair and then shout at the top of their lungs from the bottom of their collective souls, “THIS IS SPARTA!”

[mission9]

Ah, so you have the courage of your convictions up until it crosses your support for your own crap.
Or vice versa depending on need...

Interesting.

As far as pay grade, well, we all have our fantasies and our realities. Given your attitude and style, as well as how you treat others, I think the pay grade you are is not nearly as high as you portend.

As for mine...

Well, don’t bet too much...

I will bet the house every time that attacking me is proof that I have won the argument. My argument, my attitude and my style is not the issue, Fred is. He has a week argument, a week attitude and a week style. And I can say that without fear of contradiction every day.

[ejonesie22]

So your mental choices got out of sequence...

Got it.

As for the rest...

Horse Hockey.

[Mr Apple]

Fred in ‘08

[Mr Apple]

Fred in ‘08

[ejonesie22]

You didn’t grow up in Alabama did you?

Just curious...

[Mrs. Don-o]

If you refer to SD you’re supposed to ping her.

[phothus]

Sorry Mission,

If you were a little less arrogant and a willing to listen to others a bit more you might learn sometimes. As it is, the events of the next couple of months will show who is right and wrong. I suggest you watch and then report back. My guess is that Thompson is running a much better campaign than you realize (or maybe you realize that and are just afraid because it threatens the person you are supporting).

It is interesting that you mention Sparta, because it resembles the sort of system that you would have us implement here...

[ejonesie22]

True, but she knows anyways...

[Clara Lou]

Your posts are true revelations--about yourself. Do you have ANY idea how badly your posts reflect on you? The arrogance, the smoke-screen yammering, the clownish wordiness, etc., ad infinitum. And finally: The depth of your self-admiration is evident to everyone.

[ejonesie22]

I will bet the house every time that attacking me is proof that I have won the argument. My argument, my attitude and my style is not the issue, Fred is. He has a week argument, a week attitude and a week style. And I can say that without fear of contradiction every day.

A couple of things.

First if you are to say you have won the argument, then your argument is the issue. Basic logic there, but whatever.

Also seems you, let's see, how did you say it?

when I post a sentence, each word is emblematic of a series of mental choices

Ah yes, so it seems your "mental choices" got weak there for a minute, well I can understand, your level of excellence is hard to maintain. However come to think about it you may be saying his style, attitude etc. only lasted a week. Of course he has been at it longer than that, so...

Now, back to your "argument" you "won". There is nothing to win here. Your ideas of Fred's campaign are your opinion, so while such can be presented, there is no win to be had.

It seems however you are in a minority here, just judging from the FR polls alone. You are still working on a few of us, you have about 3000 Hunter and Fred fans to go on selling Mitt Romney, and you are not doing to good.

Also it seems several "high pay grade" political operatives and groups like national Right to Life and Tom McClintock among many others would have a difference of opinion. I know they are wrong and you are right, indeed I cannot see why we don't turn the whole country over to you and avoid this mess every 4 years.

On a personal note, I have to pay you a compliment, It is very rare that an individual really humors me, to the point I laugh down into my soul. You have done so.

The whole "When some on insults me I have won" bit after you have insulted said poster first is alone worth its weight in gold.

[HerrBlucher]

This is ground control to mission9
you’ve really failed the grade
and your’e posting in a most peculiar way
if you think we give a rat’s azz what you say

Ground control to mission9 you’re hero Mitt is a waste of time

can you hear me mission9?
can you hear me mission9?
can you hear me mission9?

[2ndDivisionVet]

No disrespect intended, but have you had a mental hygiene checkup with your physician recently? If not, I would advise it. Your rambling screeds and diatribes, combined with your strange references to unrelated board games and motion pictures lead me to believe that either you are suffering arterial blockage, dementia, Alzheimer’s or another source of muddled thinking. Please, for your own sake and that of your loved ones, schedule an appointment this week to see someone.

[SuziQ]

Whatever.

[StAnDeliver]

"I like Mitt!"

Who?

[ejonesie22]

Man, I wish I had said that...

[StAnDeliver]

Fixed.

"Despite the title 'Thompson back state bans on same-sex marriage', the usual cadre of Romulans, Giuliettes, anti-Federalists, and paleo-wannabe Arators immediately converged to turn it into Better Red Than Fred. This was a thread about Fred and the Fredheads turned it into an anti-Romney thread. Very telling."

[StAnDeliver]

"If Frederalism has its way, and Hawaii, California, Mass, Minnesota, etc redefine marriage, after a few years of this, do you really think that nationally, 70% of the population will support one man one woman, as they do now? Of course not, we will have ceded to the enemies of the family important territory, territory which includes the media centers of the nation, and therefore, will continue to drive public opinion, until, if you believe in one man, one woman, you are committing a hate crime."

This is absurd on so many levels. Foremost your laughable contradiction that the "media centers" drive "public opinion" into "believe one man, one woman...a hate crime" and yet somehow "70% of the population" supports "one man one woman as they do now".

If people like you are Mitt's best chance, then Romney is copiously screwed.

[AFA-Michigan]

Thompson must think social conservatives are idiots.

Commend Floridians for working their hearts out to pass a Marriage Protection Amendment to their state constitution.

Refuse to ensure that Florida’s amendment, if passed, can’t be overturned some day — along with all the other states’ marriage laws and amendments — by five members of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Protecting marriage is the objective, Fred, not justifying your selective application of the “federalism” principle.

Presumably, Fred agrees that slavery should be constitutionally prohibited in all 50 states. Whatever reasoning he offers to justify that, equally applies to protectinng life and marriage.