Fred Thompson said Friday that he supports a constitutional amendment that would nullify the full faith and credit clause with regard to gay marriage.   “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.  Unlike some of the other proposals, this is a federalist approach that would put the decision in the hands of state legislators.  This would probably be easier to pass than those proposals that would define marriage in the Constitution, giving a states’ rights argument to those who do not support a federal standard.  The main reason that this is an issue is that we have a bunch of judges who should have run for legislative office rather than accepting appointments to the bench, and Thompson’s statements on other judicial matters, such as Roe, suggest that he understands that to be the crux of the problem.

While  I find Thompson’s proposal favorable both to the status quo and to the constitutional definition of marriage, I don’t think marriage should be a legal matter.  Instead, I think it should be left solely to the pervue of religion.  If a church chooses to recognize same-sex marriages, they could do so and gay couples would be able to say that they are married.  At the same time, those not approving of same-sex marriage would not be expected to recognize any special status for that relationship.  In terms of legal arrangements, they could be made on an individual basis between two individuals and those two individuals and other parties.  For example, if an employer wants to provide benefits for a significant other, the employee and employer would work out an individual arrangement as to who is covered under a particular plan.  I’m sure Michael K will have some thoughts on how workable this would be, but I thought I’d throw it out there and see what discussion it generates.

A few days ago, Alex informed me that the team here would allow me to join them.  I just jumped right in, but perhaps I should follow Michael K’s lead and tell you a bit about myself.

I’ve been involved in politics since 1996 when I volunteered for the Dole campaign.   My work on campaigns has been in a volunteer capacity, but I also spent some time in college - Catholic University - working at Americans for Tax Reform.  After graduation, I did political outreach for Priests for Life from 2003-2005.  I’m currently in the US for a short period between a year-plus trip in Latin America and a teaching stint in Korea.  I also have my own blog.

Politically, I’m a Ron Paul conservative.  As a general rule, I want the government, at least the federal government, doing as little as possible.   As my work at PFL suggests, though, I don’t think that a libertarian philosophy in any way conflicts with a pro-life position.  Though I supported the invasion of Iraq, I would agree with Paul that Congress should have declared war rather than simply authorize the use of force, a difference that resulted in far too much hair-splitting.

I’m a die hard Notre Dame fan and look forward to the Irish improving upon our 27-5-1 record against the Yellow Jackets on September 1.  For the record, Georgia Tech’s average margin of victory in those five games was 8 points.  Notre Dame’s average margin of victory was 20.  Just sayin’…