CNN: Fred Thompson Supports Constitutional Ban On Marriage, Would Overturn Roe vs. Wade

Ken McCracken • August 18, 2007

I was a little puzzled when I read this CNN article about a recent interview with Fred Thompson in Iowa:

Showing his conservative stripes, Thompson said he would push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and would overturn Roe v. Wade.

Putting aside for a moment the absurdity of anyone as President overturning Roe vs. Wade (that would be the Supreme Court’s job, though Congress could make Roe moot by amending the constitution, but even then the President is only minimally involved), Fred Thompson supports a constitutional ban on gay marriage?
One of the big reasons why I support Fred Thompson is because he is a staunch federalist. Meaning that he feels every issue not specifically assigned to a branch of the federal government through the Constitution ought to be left up to the states. To all principled federalists, this means the marriage issue as well. So if Thompson is now supporting a gay marriage amendment…that’s a major revelation. And a rather sharp departure from his federalist principles.
So does he support an amendment banning gay marriage? I’ve never heard him talk about it, and I doubt that he does. Here’s what Thompson is quoted as saying in the article itself:

“I don’t think that one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage or allowing gay marriage and have another state be required to follow along,” Thompson told CNN’s John King in an interview Friday.
Thompson added that the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion “was bad law and bad medicine.”

That sounds to me like Thompson, if anything, would support a constitutional amendment making it so that one state doesn’t have to recognize a marriage in another state. Which sounds like a perfectly reasonable position to me.
Still, it’d be interesting to see how Thompson addresses this.

Tags: Uncategorized

http://Array jpe

It’s a rare bird that values states’ rights over substantive policy. From the moment Thompson announced his federalism stance, I figured it wouldn’t be long before it started to crumble, and that’s because pro-lifers and anti-gays are like most people. They just want their pet issues to pass, regardless of the level of government at which it takes place.

So you’re absolutely right that gays won’t stop at a states’ rights platform, but in that they’re like most people.

And that’s why I keep finding myself reading this blog even if I don’t comment; it’s a rare space where people genuinely seem to care about the value of federalism even when it is their pet issue at stake.
HG

It’s win-win; they don’t have to deal with me, I don’t have to deal with them.

That live and let live attitude is commendable, but hardly common amongst homosexuals. If marriage is all they were after they could move to Canada, but instead they fight to force everyone to accept a not just a new definition of marriage, but one that ignores the historical, religious, and cultural definition. A definition which is highly offensive and unacceptable to the majority of Americans who hold that marriage is a sacred institution. Don’t think for a minute that State’s rights will be an acceptable end to the argument. This has the potential of being a very devisive solution, closer to resembling the devisiveness of slavery than to a peaceful resolution.
jpe

Isn’t such protection guaranteed by the Equal Protectin Clause of the 14th Amendment?

You’re arguing for something like a right to consistent treatment across state lines; the very opposite (disparate treatment by virtue of federalism) is built into the DNA of our system, even if it’s been railroaded the last century. So there’s no such right to consistent treatment, and the opposite is assured by the constitution.
http://www.ski-blog.com/ sayanything-24

It’s a rare bird that values states’ rights over substantive policy. From the moment Thompson announced his federalism stance, I figured it wouldn’t be long before it started to crumble, and that’s because pro-lifers and anti-gays are like most people.

Sorry, did not get the whole quote.
http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

I suppose if the Presidents of right leaning persuasion were elected to office I suppose a conservative supreme court could over rule roe v wade. I don’t see it happening with out the left trying to over throw the government.
http://www.ski-blog.com/ sayanything-24

because pro-lifers and anti-gays are like most people. They just want their pet issues to pass, regardless of the level of government at which it takes place.

I hope that I am consistent on this point. I understand that Mass, if given state’s rights to ban or allow abortion, will undoubtedly offer unrestricted access to abortion and I also assume that Utah will completely ban it. Other states will find some middle ground and we will all have the change to vote with our feet. And some of us will, others will simply vote in their state and deal with the consequences of the popular vote.

Genuinely, I just want it voted up or down on a state by state level. And the right to lifers and the pro-choicers don’t at all. The want it banned at the Federal level or endorsed at the Federal level so that the voters have no real say at the state or local level.

I think Thompson has continued to be consistent that he thinks Roe was bad law, but that does not translate into him wanting to ban Abortion. He simply wants the right returned to the people. And that means overturning Roe so that voters in the 50 states can decide. Same with Gay Marriage. My state voted for a Constitutional Amendment to not allow gay marriage and to not recognize it if other states allow it. The Feds have passed a law that affirms my state’s right to not recognize it and Thompson voted for that law.

Not quite sure what inconsistencies you are referring to. But again, Thompson is an intellectual that has ideals that he adheres to. That does not bode well for the base that are often rabid religious folks or big business folks. I am a free market Libertarian leaning guy myself and that is why I love Thompson. He is not too religious (if at all), doesn’t support the continued expansion of the Federal Government, and his law background and opinions align him almost identically with Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. I want more Scalia and less big government George W. Bush Republicans. But other folks want people dripping with religion and endorsed by Pat Robertson. I just ain’t part of that wing of the party.
http://randomnumbers.us/ Brian Epps

Looks like they changed the headline. Someone at CNN is monitoring the Blogosphere.

Not a bad idea, actually, maybe the extra input can help eliminate the unforced errors.
robert108

Pro-life(saving human fetuses from being dismembered and killed) is a pet issue?

I think you have it backwards; those who wish to kill preborn humans for birth control purposes(the big abortion corporations) are the ones with a “pet issue”.
We want to save innocent lives; they want to take them for money.
HG

Because I really don’t care what two or more consenting adults get up to sexually in the privacy of their homes. Nor do I care if they choose to enter into a civil contract of marriage,

Rob,

Would I be wrong to infer from this that more than two people could marry and that is okay with you?
http://www.ski-blog.com/ sayanything-24

Defending marriage isn’t “anti-gay”, btw. You have it backwards. Those who want to change the definition of marriage are “anti-marriage”.

People that want to pass laws without using the legislative and executive branches and instead relying on unelected judicial branches are Anti-DEMOCRACY. And that is what Roe did and that is what MA did with their gay marriage ruling.

These are not really pet issues for me. Neither is Kelo. Neither is medicinal marijuana. States and consequently their voters have rights too. Women’s unwritten “right to privacy or right to choose” does not trump the right of states and their citizens to pass laws and retain all rights not enumerated as powers of the Feds (10th Amendment anyone?). The Federal War on Drugs does not justify intervention into state’s rights to pass laws regarding medical marijuana. And the SCOTUS should not allow municipalities to take property from one person and give it to a private developer for projects simply because it increases their tax base. But the Federal Government should not play banker with highway funds either. They should not play broker with the entire country’s retirement pyramid scheme that is Social Security. They should not force a minimum wage upon our citizens.

We send money to the Feds and have a Federal government in general for just a few things–signing treaties. Regulating interstate commerce (and this does not include the EPA ruling on turtles in California). Settling state-state disputes. Raising a military. Protecting our citizens.

The Constitution is not a pet issue. The 10th Amendment is not a pet issue. I am PRO-CONSTITUTION, not pro-life or anti-gay or pro-medical pot or anti-eminent domain.
docdave

It’s within states rights to address these issues and the Federal government should butt out.

Indeed today, many states have passed laws reaffirming that marriage requires one man and one women thus negating so-called gay marriages. To the best of my knowledge, their (the states) right to do this has not been successfully challenged and the states do not have to honor gay marriages from states that allow it.

As far as abortion is concerned, the power of the states to set the rules for abortion was widely accepted before Roe which basically made all state laws void. Restoring that right to the states is what needs to be done and I think Congress can pass legislation to do this. However, legislation like this will not make it through a Demcratic controlled Congress [after all it's all about womens votes (er I mean rights) and as everyone knows the unborn have no rights].
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

Just don’t call it a marriage and we are cool.

People can call it whatever they want. They just can’t demand that we recognize it as such.
http://www.ski-blog.com/ sayanything-24

I believe in civil unions as essentially contractual relationships between two or more parties. This in effect legalizes gay and polygamous partnerships. They should carry the same recognition and tax benefits as married couples. Just that they are not “marriages”. Marriage is a term that implies a historical and almost universal meaning. Gays will never have “equivalence” and the term marriage will probably always and in my opinion should be associated with opposite sex unions.

I don’t care if you have a union with 10 people. I don’t have a problem extending benefits to more than one whatever you want to call your “partner”. You can have crazy freaky sex in your own home and while my moral values consider it wrong, I am not going to deny folks the ability to form unions to protect their community property and receive equivalent tax treatment. Just don’t call it a marriage and we are cool.

But honestly, IMO, that is not what the gays want. They want gay marriage. They want their lifestyle and unions to be condoned by society. And they want anyone that disagrees with this message to be branded as bigots.
docdave

Re: abortion: Congress can’t really touch it so long as it’s protected as an unenumerated right under the 14th amendment (along with the right to teach your children, the right to travel interstate, etc).

jpe, the Roe decision has nothing to do with the 14th amendment except to deny that the unborn is covered by the amendment. ergo, the 14th amendment does not convey the right for women to kill their unborn.
robert108

They should carry the same recognition and tax benefits as married couples.

Why? Real marriage involves progeny, to whom name and property is passed, thus the protections. It also involves the blending of families, which also deserves protection under the law. Neither of those apply to “gay unions”, which are for the emotional satisfaction of those involved, as long as they are “together”. No legal sanctions or privileges are required for that.
Neiman

WETBACK:

We don’t need to amend anything, what we need to do is beat the living shit out of these queers and lock them back into there closets. And hang a few abortion doctors. But thats just my opinion of course.

Comments like that are what make you appear dangerous and perhaps an Arian Nation, white supremicist type of person. That is why I referred to your having a Nazi-like solution to things under the TS Police Commissioner thread; you have recommended TS be quarantined, them and homosexuals be killed and now murdering abortionists, all as possible solutions to removing people you believe to be socially-morally inferior from society. This plus your anti-Semitic remarks only reinforce that negative image.

Every time I think I may understand you, you say things like this that are absolutely indefensible.

jpe:

Congress can’t really touch it (abortion) so long as it’s protected as an unenumerated right under the 14th amendment.

If several states, I don’t know the right number, approved homosexual marriage, why couldn’t it be argued that it too should be protected under the 14th Amendments equal protection clause, when these homosexual married couples move into states not recognizing homosexual marriage?
Neiman

Justin B.: That’s probably very, very good advice and Wetback was right about just ignoring most of these things; but I wasn’t really putting myself down so much as I was mocking the ‘trolls’ as you call them that love to call me these names. However, I will try to follow your advice.

Anyway, thanks for the advice, I mean that sincerely!
jpe

One has to wonder where this sort of division of state populations along moral lines will lead.

One hopes it’ll lead to good things. I wanted to live in more progressive environs, I moved, and *presto* I don’t have to deal with frothing preachers screeching about teh gays anymore. It’s win-win; they don’t have to deal with me, I don’t have to deal with them.

I guess it could lead to some lack of diversity of political opinion, but that strikes me as a secondary goal to the goal of living in a political clime in which one is free to flourish.
HG

Which sounds like a perfectly reasonable position to me.

How is that ever going to work? One state say two men are married while minutes away they are not? How does such a couple file on tax forms? Maybe we will have to create a whole new filing… married in the state of ” “. If then the federal gov’t acknowledges such marriages then they might as well be lawful.

Without a federal law, i.e. constitutional ban on gay marriage, there will be plenty of confusion surrounding state approved marriages.
robert108

Also, wanting to prevent a small special interest group from fundamentally changing the definition of marriage isn’t a “pet issue” either. It is a matter of supporting the fundamental building block of all human societies: real marriage.
Defending marriage isn’t “anti-gay”, btw. You have it backwards. Those who want to change the definition of marriage are “anti-marriage”.
WETBACK

Neiman: Think what you want about me, I don’t cringe from being called a Nazi. I even said I admire Hitler. Maybe it appears to me now that your just a Zionist, pointing your finger and screaming attack. What I say is what all Far Right Conservatives think but not always say.
Neiman

JPE & Justin B: So I was completely wrong about my reading of the Constitution and in essence I either lied or I am just incredibly ignorant or both.

If you’ll recall, I foretold that outcome, I said I was sure I had it all wrong, which is what extreme dementia, paranoia and self-righteous hate mongering always creates – gross stupidity.

I am so glad that you guys caught my horrible errors as demented as I am, I sure don’t want to mislead anyone.
HG

You’d file married in the home state and single for fed purposes. Nothing to it.

Sounds reasonable. But I don’t think most supporters of gay marriage would agree, especially those who are trying to marry.

I like the idea of being able to live in a state where the majority does not legally acknowledge gay partnerships as marriage. One has to wonder where this sort of division of state populations along moral lines will lead.
Neiman

Knowing full well that disagreeing with the Great Leader will expose me to many negative assaults; he said

though Congress could make Roe moot by amending the constitution.

While I am according to most posting here severly demented, illiterate, self-righteous and paranoid; in my extremely diminished capacity I see nothing in Article Five of The U. S. Constitution that allows the Congress to amend the Constitution; at my 3rd grade reading level I think it says they can only propose an Amendment, but the states by 3/4 votes must ratify it; or 2/3 of the states my propose a Constitutional Convention to propose an amendment(s) and then still 3/4 of the states must ratify that amendment(s). But, of course I am completely wrong and have completely misread article five, mea culpa – mea culpa! Oh, I used amendments in single and plural, as dumb old me, I think once a convention is approved by the states they can completely amend and change the entire document.

Also, I am sure I am equally wrong that the Fourteenth Amendment (1868): which, “Defines United States citizenship; prohibits states from abridging citizens’ privileges or immunities and rights to due process and the equal protection of the law; The way I read this in my advanced mental disease is that if one state approves homosexual marriage, then no other state may deny that couple the same rights in their state; and thus one state can in effect amend the Constitution by their legislation and judicial decisions and thereby every state must recognize that marriage and homosexual marriage becomes defacto the law of the land. Of course, I have no idea what ‘defacto’ really means, it just sounded good.

Now that I have unfairly and in ignorance brought in the Constitution and seemingly opposed the Dear Leader, let the attacks begin.
jpe

How does such a couple file on tax forms? Maybe we will have to create a whole new filing… married in the state of ” “.

You’d file married in the home state and single for fed purposes. Nothing to it.

Re: abortion: Congress can’t really touch it so long as it’s protected as an unenumerated right under the 14th amendment (along with the right to teach your children, the right to travel interstate, etc).

On the topic of abortion, I’d be OK with an amendment to return the issue to the states. (I already voted w/ my feet, leaving the midwest for the east coast). The problem w/ overturning Roe, of course, is that it doesn’t return the issue to the states; it just means that federal and state legislatures can ban or regulate it.

I’m a die-hard dem on social issues, but if I thought Thompson could maintain a principled federalist stance (which I sincerely doubt), I’d strongly consider voting for him.
http://www.ski-blog.com/ sayanything-24

Congress can only propose amendments. Maybe Rob didn’t adequately explain Article 5 because he is cooking up something good for Friday Night Videos.

Congress can and has passed the Defense of Marriage Act that Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996. Happens that Thompson was in the Senate at that time and voted with another 84 Senators for the bill. 85-14.

`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.’…

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’.

As to anything with Roe, only Constitutional Amendment by 3/4th of the states or additional rulings or clarification by the SCOTUS can change Roe. Abortion Amendments have been tried as Rob is pointing out, but have never made it out of Congress. Either the states or Congress can propose Constitutional Amendments by 2/3rds majority.
jpe

I’m 100% w/ Rob on this (so much the worse for him, I’d imagine he’s thinking). An amendment could be passed, but it wouldn’t be prudent given the countervailing federalist policy concerns.

Neiman: what you’re talking about re: one state’s laws being given effect in another is from the Full Faith & Credit clause. There’s an exception for questions of pressing public policy (so if state A passed a law allowing blind people driver’s licenses, state B doesn’t have to allow blind people to drive through their state. It’s almost certainly applicable to gay marriage, as marriage has always been a pressing public policy question for the states)
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

“I don’t think that one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage or allowing gay marriage and have another state be required to follow along,” Thompson told CNN’s John King in an interview Friday.

Me neither. States have rights and we have no right to look to another state and demand something. We can ask and try to change their minds so that they change their laws, but that’s about all we can do.

This shouldn’t even be an issue. American states need to grow some balls. Where are our Senators? They’re out busying themselves with the people’s needs instead of tending to the state’s.
http://www.ski-blog.com/ sayanything-24

If you’ll recall, I foretold that outcome, I said I was sure I had it all wrong, which is what extreme dementia, paranoia and self-righteous hate mongering always creates – gross stupidity.

I am so glad that you guys caught my horrible errors as demented as I am, I sure don’t want to mislead anyone.

Stop bro. Either it is a bad day or you have a complex. =) One way or another, no need to spend an entire post downplaying yourself as being stupid. Just say what you have to say and let the trolls call you stupid. If not for personal insults, most of the trolls around here would have nothing to say. I mean, at least let them do their jobs and stroke their own egos by mocking you. They seem to enjoy mocking me. Who am I to mock myself and deprive them of their few daily moments of self importance?
WETBACK

Why Neiman: Because no one screams Nazi so repetitively unless there just a flat out Jew. And because of your enormous support for Israel it leads me to believe your a Zionist.

What defines a far right conservative?

A true Christian Patriot of United States.
Neiman

lik: I am against homosexual marriage period; but are you saying a homosexual or lesbian couple are legally married in state-A; but when they move to State-H they are no longer legally married as to their legal rights, like a surviving partners having access to the retirement and/or death benefits of their deceased out of state spouse? Isn’t such protection guaranteed by the Equal Protectin Clause of the 14th Amendment?

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Doesn’t the prohibition against abridging (restricting) privileges, like marriage, granted by other states fall under this clause? After all, what compels them to acknowledge the marital privileges of heterosexual couples?

Wetback:
1. What defines a far right conservative?
2. Why do my concerns about your Nazi-like sympathies automatically make me a Zionist? I do support a Divine right of the Jews to an independent state called Israel, but I am just curious why a distaste for Nazism automatically equals pro-Zion beliefs.
WETBACK

Justin B.: That’s probably very, very good advice and Wetback was right about just ignoring most of these things;

Never said that I said something along the lines of Enjoy it for what it is.

We don’t need to amend anything, what we need to do is beat the living shit out of these queers and lock them back into there closets. And hang a few abortion doctors. But thats just my opinion of course.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

When I said that Congress can amend the Constitution I of course was referring to the entire amendment process which is initiated in Congress.

We talk of Congress passing laws all the time, and it’s not inaccurate if we fail to mention that Congress must pass a law and the President must approve of it in order for it to pass (with an override vote of Congress possible as well).

No need to be pedantic.

And that’s why I keep finding myself reading this blog even if I don’t comment; it’s a rare space where people genuinely seem to care about the value of federalism even when it is their pet issue at stake.

I’m not sure if you know this, jpe, but personally I have no problem with gay marriage. I’m not going to advocate for it because it’s not exactly my ball of wax, but when it came to a vote here in North Dakota I voted against banning it. Because I really don’t care what two or more consenting adults get up to sexually in the privacy of their homes. Nor do I care if they choose to enter into a civil contract of marriage, be it blessed by their chosen religion or not.

SayAnythingBlog.com

CNN: Fred Thompson Supports Constitutional Ban On Marriage, Would Overturn Roe vs. Wade

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments