Thompson Supports States’ Rights Amendment
Written by Sean on August 19th, 2007Fred 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.
20
AM
The state has compelling reasons - its survival - to define marriage. Every state and non-state ruling body has done so for all of recorded history.
20
AM
marriage is also a legal issue from hospital visitation rights, taxes, inheritence etc. thats why I oppose the thompson plan in that in the highly mobile society in which we live now, it makes no sense to create situations where gays could loose those legal rights by moving to another state.
20
AM
I support Thompson’s Federalism, wholeheartedly. It’s the intent of the Founding Fathers - and clearly explained in the Federalist Papers for this current Constitution.
Marriage has historical, legal roots which transcend the feelings of today’s shallow ‘presentism’.
20
AM
The issue of homosexual marriage should be left in the hands of the states, not the Fed. If other states want to follow Massachusetts’ lead, then so be it, but states that do not should not be expected to recognize a homosexual marriage that took place in a state where it would be legal. Thompson is right on this.
20
PM
James, Marriage as a social institution is a disaster. About half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Seriel-marrying is widespread, including by non-Mormon Republican Presidential candidates. If you really think it’s a good idea that the federal government define marriage, do you think that a time-frame should be introduced into the definition, or are the 24 hour marriages of Las Vegas legitimate?
Also, gays already live together and engage in whatever behavior they choose behind closed doors. I don’t approve of this behavior, but I also don’t think anything should be done by the government to stop it. The means used to do so would be overly intrusive. What gays are looking for more than anything is approval. Otherwise, they’d be satisfied with civil unions. My suggestion would mean that society on the whole would not be forced to recognize gay marriage as such.
21
AM
The defence of marrage act is as strong a law as the civil rights act but, just because bush has chosen not to enforce the act doesn’t mean that act is gone. Federalism is great but its easier to use the 6 degrees to kevin bacon logic that is the modern interpretation of the commerce clause to justify enforcing the defense of marriage act. This sounds like Thompson trying to have his cake and eat it too with the federal marriage amendment. If fred continues to pussyfoot on issues the way he pussyfoots on entering the race then I will have to take another look at rudy and Mitt while praying that newt gets in the race to give the field some real leadership.