Say Anything Blog

If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t have one....
Live and let live

Fine, but will I have to pretend that separate really is equal after all?

[Feet make good soup!]

Thompson voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 that protects an individual state’s right to disregard marriages of other states that would not be valid in their own.

What more do you want?  A Constitutional Amendment that takes away the rights of states to determine what a valid marriage is?  A Federal Law that strips MA of the ability to regulate their own definition of Marriage.

Funny, but it seems to me that the Governor of MA was powerless to stop Gay Marriage in his state when he was Governor.  So what real power does a President have to stop it in the nation and why does Romney even feel the need to weigh in when he was the Chief of the Executive Branch in MA when they threw the whole thing into chaos.  Is he gonna do a better job fixing gay marriage from the Oval Office in DC?

(and Romney is my number 2 choice behind Thompson, BTW)

Thompson is a staunch federalist, and he will not support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.  He will, however, support an amendment stating that no state has to recognize a marriage authorized in another state.

Which is what true conservatives should want.  Whatever ones opinion about gay marriage (and, personally, I couldn’t care less about it) we should recognize that it is a state’s rights issue.

Calling Thompson a flip-flopper on this issue is just plain dishonest.

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

meep - If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t have one....
Live and let live

Right on. And also, if you don’t want to recognize two men as a marriage, then don’t.

Live and let live. It’s good that we have this respect for one’s views.

He will, however, support an amendment stating that no state has to recognize a marriage authorized in another state.

An amendment is not necessary for that.  If he said this, he must be pandering.

MSN had a piece on Thompson trying very hard to hit him for flip flopping.  They did a good job of looking at eachy instance and the some of the context. 

I was hesitant before but I’m much more pro Thompson after that.  I understood his position in each case, sometimes disagreed.  I’d vote for the crotchety old man.

What if he simply voted for a law that said something like the following:

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.

Definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’:
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.”

Because he did vote for that Federal Law that protects the rights of states to do just that back in 1996 when he was in the Senate, along with 85 other Senators.

And the article you quote says the following:

Hear Fred speak more, “I don’t think one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage ... and have another state be required to follow along.” Federal judges, Fred says, may rule the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that. “I think a federal constitutional amendment would cure that,” he says.

Does Fred support the Marriage Protection Amendment or doesn’t he? The amendment a majority of GOP senators supported in 2006? The one that’s simple first sentence reads: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman”?

No one can tell. So Team Thompson tidies up the mess to National Review online: “Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.”

“If necessary,” though, Team Thompson says he might support some other constitutional amendment that has the word “marriage” in it.

It seems that his positions DO MATCH.

If the courts challenge the legitimacy of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 and throw it out, then the Constitution must be amended to protect the rights of states to determine what consitutes a marriage within their state.  Activist judges have already allowed gay marriage in MA and the full faith and credit clause can be interpreted to force other states to recognize these marriages if the DOMA is thrown out.

Is there something inconsistent about this?  So this constitutes a “flip flop”?  Perhaps the folks that wrote the article might want to read the DOMA.

Let me quote the DOMA that he voted for again:

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.”

Voted for that in 1996.  This article asks him if he would:

Does Fred support the Marriage Protection Amendment or doesn’t he? The amendment a majority of GOP senators supported in 2006? The one that’s simple first sentence reads: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman”?

Take some reading comprehension.

Let the people vote, either on a State-by-State, Federal, County, City or community basis, but let it be by popular vote.
If the populace doesn’t want this, then it is fundamentally unAmerican to try to force it on us through the courts.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Furthermore, codifying marriage the way it is already is not “banning” anything; it is merely agreeing with the vast majority of the world population and the US population as to the requirements for real marriage.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Hear Fred speak more, “I don’t think one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage ... and have another state be required to follow along.” Federal judges, Fred says, may rule the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that. “I think a federal constitutional amendment would cure that,” he says.

If precedent has any value this has already been litigated.  Marriage is a license not a judgment.  States are not required to respect the licenses of other states, but they are required to respect there judgments.  Divorce has to be recognized, marriage does not.

If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t have one....

Better, if you don’t like heterosexual marriage don’t have one. 

After all, anyone, gay or straight, can marry if they wish to.