Election 2008 | Fred Thompson | News | Republican Party

Fred Thompson: My Plan to Keep the Gays from Marriage

Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson reiterated his stance on gay marriage today, calling it an attempt to preserve "traditional" marriage while at the same time limiting the role of the federal government.

ThompsonAccording to the Associated Press, "Thompson favors a constitutional amendment that bars judges from legalizing gay marriage, but also leaves open the door for state legislatures to approve the practice. He said social and religious conservatives who would prefer an amendment that also bars legislatures from legalizing gay marriage can live with his view."

Said Thompson, who claims he has "met frequently" with "influential social conservatives" he won't name: "Everyone I have talked to in my meetings like this, the answer has been yes. I think they prefer their own wording. They are primarily concerned about marriage being a union between a man and a woman. What I have done is fashion something that says judges can't [legalize gay marriages] any more...It'll stop the process in its tracks because it's all judge-made. No state legislature accompanied by a governor's signature has gone down that road."

Thompson Defends Gay Marriage Stance [ap]

Recently
Fred Thompson on Homosexual "Deviancy", Gay Marriage [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Frankenberry would change our Constitution to prevent our marriages?


    To think I ate his cereal for so many years!!!

    Posted by: Marco | Oct 1, 2007 7:40:01 PM


  2. He's more evil than Reagan was (and about as bad of an actor). He even looks it.

    Thank god he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning (hopefully).

    Surely after the hatchet-job Bush has done to the country (& the world), and with all the scandals, the Republicans are finished in Washington for awhile.

    Posted by: Jordan | Oct 1, 2007 7:46:39 PM


  3. Frankenberry!

    Posted by: david | Oct 1, 2007 7:47:03 PM


  4. I don't think it's too optimistic to say any federal constitutional amendment preventing gay marriage has little chance of passing.

    "No state legislature accompanied by a governor's signature has gone down that road."

    You hear this all the time, but I'm always surprised by how short-sighted politicians can be. Conservatives by definition think the prevailing attitudes of the present will be the same decades into the future, even though that has absolutely never been true. The only thing an amendment would do is delay gay marriage, which is inevitable... and inspire an embarrassed apology years down the line.

    Even knowing this, I'm sure most of those hardliners would still hold out for the amendment. Why? Just to postpone it and give themselves a few more "golden" years?

    Pathetic.

    Posted by: rafi (not rafael) | Oct 1, 2007 7:57:36 PM


  5. How about an amendment to ban idiot actors from running for president?

    Posted by: Michael | Oct 1, 2007 7:58:30 PM


  6. No state legislature . . . except for California, where Ahnuld has explicitly stated he'll veto it in favor of deferring to the courts or to a general election.

    Bah.

    Posted by: AG | Oct 1, 2007 8:00:22 PM


  7. Dick Wolf has better chance of being elected, and he's not running for office.

    Posted by: my2cents | Oct 1, 2007 8:25:36 PM


  8. Freddy Thompson, (his legal, given name) is a Reagan wannabe. Reagan was already afflicted with a virulent form of Alzheimers long before he became President in 1980 and went downhill from there. Freddy doesn't even have that excuse for his caveman politics.

    (With apologies to Neanderthals’ and Cro-Magnons everywhere.)

    Posted by: Bill Perdue | Oct 1, 2007 8:29:56 PM


  9. If he can have a trophy wife, I should be allowed to have a trophy husband.

    Posted by: Mike in the Tundra | Oct 1, 2007 8:37:58 PM


  10. What an idiot! In other words, he would amend the Constitution to prevent judges from doing their duties as laid out under the Constitution.

    He must hate the Constitution as much as the Religious Right cultists do.

    Posted by: AggieCowboy | Oct 1, 2007 8:46:07 PM


  11. If anyone thinks this guy CAN'T get elected in the united States is dlusional. No one paid attention to the little, loud, obnoxious man in Germany in the 1930's and look what happened. Don't let down your guard, even for a minute.

    Posted by: jerzeemike | Oct 1, 2007 9:19:42 PM


  12. @ JERZEEMIKE -- You are under arrest for violating Godwin's Law.

    Posted by: becks07 | Oct 1, 2007 10:11:46 PM


  13. The proposed amendment is a complicated plan that is intended to please bigots. It is not an intelligent approach to a question of human rights. It would be a desecration of our constitution. The proponent should be ashamed of himself. He may be a Reagan wannabe, but he looks more like George Wallace, especially in photos taken when he was younger and had hair.

    Posted by: John | Oct 1, 2007 10:20:51 PM


  14. OK - forget Hitler.

    Let's not forget that we never thought the disgusting current prez could be elected to a second term.

    Posted by: Gregg | Oct 1, 2007 10:47:22 PM


  15. Check out a new video on Fred Thompson
    "My Johnson is for Thompson" by the Thompson Twins.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=JgtLrQijdxo

    Posted by: Johnson | Oct 1, 2007 11:29:14 PM


  16. He looks like a vampire.

    Posted by: Rafael | Oct 2, 2007 1:20:15 AM


  17. Fred Thompson is an intellectual dilettante...

    Posted by: Robert In WeHo | Oct 2, 2007 2:40:39 AM


  18. Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. The amendment would say what? "The federal government shall make no law regarding the definition of marriage." I don't see any problem with that. One of the primary functions of the constitution is to distinguish between federal and state powers.

    Posted by: Christopher | Oct 2, 2007 5:02:19 AM


  19. Anyone who thinks Thompson can't get elected hasn't been paying too much attention.

    As much as I hate to say it, if he gets the Republican nomination, I wouldn't bet against him. Vote against him, sure, but not bet against him.

    Posted by: Michael | Oct 2, 2007 5:05:38 AM


  20. Rafi gets it, I think. Thompson's proposal does not prevent gay marriages. Rafi knows it, I know it: gay marriage will come and if DOMA became a federal constitutional amendment it would be repealed by a future generation.

    Thompson only wants to keep a mandate of gay marriage from coming from the courts and allows it to come from the legislatures and governors or even via referendum.

    His proposal is heavily criticized by the Religious Right who are going far off the deep end questioning his Christianity and threatening to run a third party candidate.

    This compromise, which protects progressive states, is better than the spotty system of separate-but-equal or the back-stabbing of the Democrat party and especially the Clintons who gave you DADT and DOMA.

    I'm horrified at the myopia and reactionary B.S. in most of the comments. How pathetic are you folks to drawing comparisons to Hitler or you who are still attacking Reagan. Newsflash - he left office 20 years ago and he's dead. Let's talk about 2008 not '38 and '80.

    Posted by: queendru | Oct 2, 2007 5:08:51 AM


  21. How did I know that someone would start hating on the "Democrat" party and Hillary Clinton at the drop of a hat?

    EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICANT candidate stood by at the VERY FIRST Republicant debate as Tommy Thompson said that any gay person should be subject to firing by any employer who objects to the existence of gay people. NOT ONE REPUBLICANT candidate stood up to say that was wrong. Not one. So it's STILL the operative opinion.

    So much for defining state's rights and federal rights. Or regulating the courts. They are coming after your job, your hospital visits, your inheritance. Log Cabin Ex-Gays think their money will insulate them from the hatred...but statements by every Republicant candidate prove that they will continue to establish one religion in violation of the Constitution to get the votes and money.

    Posted by: bamjaya | Oct 2, 2007 6:53:11 AM


  22. How ultimately straight of you Mr. Thompson. You belong on the Republican trash heap with the rest of your neoconservative cronies.

    Posted by: Bill | Oct 2, 2007 8:56:51 AM


  23. Queendru, I appreciate your enthusiasm but suspect you of being a bit young and/or naive. Were you around when Clinton signed DADT and then DOMA? DADT especially was a tough decision. Remember how radical it seemed when he forced the issue so early in his first term? And excuse any of us who cannot get over Reagan and what he did to our community. I know that had he acted on the issue, I would not have lost the friends that I did. I will never forget nor will I stop "attacking" Reagan because I'm afraid the young and arrogant may not remember and possibly allow history to repeat itself in another dangerous way.

    I think Thompson is just in the race in an attempt to make McCain look

    Posted by: Rey | Oct 2, 2007 9:08:37 AM


  24. He wont get elected dog catcher.

    Posted by: dc-20008 | Oct 2, 2007 10:43:38 AM


  25. What is the wording of the Thompson amendment? Does he even know?

    Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Oct 2, 2007 10:48:35 AM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «As Brutal Burma Crisis Continues, Monks Sent to Prison Camps« «