Fred Thompson Backtracking on Gay Marriage?

August 20, 2007 at 6:39 am 11 comments

I wrote a couple of days ago about the CNN interview with possible Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson in which he expressed support for amendments to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage and abortion rights which you can read here. Now Fred’s non-campaign has issued a “clarification.”

In an interview with CNN today, former Senator Fred Thompson’s position on constitutional amendments concerning gay marriage was unclear.

Thompson believes that states should be able to adopt their own laws on marriage consistent with the views of their citizens.

He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states, or that activist judges should construe the constitution to require that.

If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states.

Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

In other words, Fred is backtracking so that he does not appear as really, really anti-gay, just as a supporter of states’ rights. I wonder if Fred would have also used the states’ rights argument during the Black civil rights movement as justification for supporting separate schools for Black and white students. As it is now, he is advocating that same-sex and opposite-sex couples be treated differently under the law.

He does hold out the possibility of of supporting a federal constitutional amendment if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn what many consider to be the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act although Fred spins it as supporting an amendment “prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states.” In any event, it boils down to Fred wanting to protect the special right to marriage that opposite-sex couples have in 49 states including the multiple marriages that he, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain and Newt Gingrich have all had.


Entry filed under: 2008 Election, Campaigns, Conservatives, Family, Fred Thompson, LGBT, Marriage, Politics, Republicans.

Sunday Blog Love FEC Complaint Filed Against Fred Thompson

11 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Christopher  |  August 20, 2007 at 7:22 am

    Hillary Clinton and Fred Freeper and political twins when it comes to gay marriage equity.

    Both say “leave it up to the states.”

    Imagine: Hillary Clinton, the darling of gays and lesbians, aging feminists and Clintonistas everywhere still longing for a bit of the old magic, in accord with Fred Freeper, who married a woman young enough to be his grandaughter.

  • 2. phil_in_ny  |  August 20, 2007 at 10:00 am

    lol. Oh Gawd Chris!! I think Fred Thompson and Giulliani have more in common when it comes to women. Ever notice the Democrats don’t really have infidelity issues?

  • […] depressed) indicates he would support a federal Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, the Bloggernista points out a clarification issued by his crackerjack staff that says he’s more of the proverbial […]

  • 4. fitnessfortheoccasion  |  August 20, 2007 at 4:44 pm

    Isn’t that cute? He’s pulling a Ron Paul and hiding behind state’s rights. That kind fundamentalist hate always finds a way to shine through though. I’d expect to see more gay bashing in his language. He may be putting on the mask of compromise for the rest of us, but he’ll still send the right body language to his fellow wingnuts.

  • 5. Bloggernista  |  August 20, 2007 at 4:52 pm

    That’s why its important for us to pierce the veneer of faux moderation to call it what it is. Heterosexism.

  • 6. PalmettoPatriot  |  August 22, 2007 at 8:57 am

    Local control of government, the sovereignty of the people and their states, a division of power – these are the things that this union was founded upon. The cultures in Massachusetts and South Carolina, for example, are completely different. If they want to have gay weddings in Mass. so be it – I’m not going to tell them what to do. But don’t tell us here that we have to recognise them and adapt the same policy. That’s our decision and should not be imposed upon us from afar. So, actually, while I’m not a big Fred supporter, on this issue I think he took the correct constitutional stance.

  • 7. Bloggernista  |  August 22, 2007 at 9:16 am

    As an African-American, I am not such a big fan of leaving civil rights issues up to the states. The phrase “states’ rights” has so often been used to justify opposition to treating American citizen’s unequally.

    Fred is wrong on this issue an so are you.

  • 8. Brian  |  August 22, 2007 at 9:51 am

    I also don’t think this issue should be left up to the states. I can’t imagine the condition of civil rights if that had been the way they were handled back in the day.

    Imagine a straight couple marrying in Vermont, but moving to Tennessee and not having that marriage recognized. Our country would be in chaos.

    The ONLY reason for denying marriage to gay couples is religion, and we should know better than to allow religious beliefs to dictate public policy.

  • 9. PalmettoPatriot  |  August 22, 2007 at 1:12 pm

    Bloggernista, it doens’t matter what your ethnicity, occupation or whatever is when it comes to controlling your own future, does it? Are you telling me that you’re okay with people from thousands of miles away telling you what to do and how to live your life? – People, I might add, who have almost no idea about where you live and the issues that are important to you and your neighbors and family? Surely you want more control than that. Brian, in the message above, says that this would lead to chaos. Actually though, this is no recipe for chaos, but rather for increased liberty and self-determination. Sometimes liberty is a bit chaotic, but that’s far better than calm, universal tyranny.

  • 10. Bloggernista  |  August 22, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    P.P., whose Kool-Aid have you been drinking?

  • 11. fitnessfortheoccasion  |  August 22, 2007 at 6:22 pm

    PalmettoPatriot, your are so right! In my neck of the woods, people have to give quarters to visiting soldiers, and are prohibited from criticizing public officials. People up in New Hampshire or down in South Carolina just don’t understand the intricacies of that require such bold and patriotic laws. Wouldn’t want some yahoo from thousands of miles away saying otherwise, now would I?

    The town drinking water, apparently. Far too many people make this argument.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

AddThis Feed Button
Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory

Blog Stats

  • 833,990 hits


%d bloggers like this: