God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen - Jars of Clay - listen now

Saturday, August 18, 2007

A Pam Slam On Fred Thompson

Pam over at Pam's House Blend is slamming on undeclared Presidential candidate Fred Thompson because he supports states' rights on the issue of same-gender marriage Mischaracterizing his stance on the issue by claiming that he said we need a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

What's made her coffee bitter? An interview that Thompson gave to John King of CNN where the issue of gay marriage came up. You've heard of gay marriage right? The holy grail for gays and lesbians which any candidate for President must support to deserve our vote. Thought so.

But what did Thompson really say on the issue? Here it is:
KING: You met this morning privately with some conservative activists in this state, the people who helped people win the caucuses in the past. They say that they were very comfortable with everything said in that private meeting, very comfortable with your agenda. But they say they're skeptical, that they don't want to just hear lipservice; they want to see results. And they want to know over time, as they meet you, would you a President Fred Thompson actively push a presidential amendment banning gay marriage.

THOMPSON: Yes, yes, I think that with regard to gay marriage you have a full faith and credit issue. I don't think 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, under full faith and credit. There's some exceptions and exemptions for that. Hasn't happened yet, but I think a federal court very well likely will go in that direction, and a constitutional amendment would cure that. [emphasis mine, QC]
Okay boys and girls, let's look at this carefully. First of all, does anyone see the word "ban" in Thompson's answer? Anyone? I don't. Pam, do you? Moving on... King tried to get Thompson to say he is against gay marriage and supports a constitutional amendment to ban it, and by implication reverse all the progress made in states like Massachusetts and Vermont. But Thompson didn't go for that. He framed it, correctly, within the context of Federalism as a full faith and credit issue.

For those of you who don't know "full faith and credit" refers to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, and says:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
The Supreme Court interprets under the following precedent: "[o]ur precedent differentiates the credit owed to laws (legislative measures and common law) and to judgments." From the Wikipedia article:
If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state in contravention of its own public policy. The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage (such as polygamy, miscegenation, consanguinity, or gay marriage), civil judgments and orders, criminal conviction and others. In cases of out-of-state judgments, the Court has stated that there may be public policy exceptions to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but not a "roving" public policy exception as there is for out-of-state laws.
And that is all Thompson was talking about. He did not say he wants to ban gay marriage, or overturn it where it currently exists. He merely believes, as do I, that each State should have the freedom to make its own decision in regards to same-gender marriage, and the Federal government (and courts) should stay out of it.

0 comments:

Recent Comments

Contact Me

eMail:
cyberkevinblogs@gmail.com

MSN:
cyberkevinblogs

Google Chat:
cyberkevin1

Label Cloud

Followers

. . .

. . .

. . .


stats

Blog Archive

Disclaimer

All opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author. The author’s opinions do not represent those of his employers. All original material is copyrighted and property of the author. If you use it at least have the decency to give me credit for it. Don’t steal it or I reserve the right to sue you to heck and back, or worse. Other info may have been copyrighted by someone else; the author believes that such work as is quoted here does not exceed reasonable “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the United States Copyright Law as I understand it. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Opinions in comments or trackbacks are not mine, so if you have a problem with those, sorry, I can’t help you. Comments on this blog become the sole property of the blog, and may be reused or quoted on the blog or in any other media. Anyone mentioned in relation to a crime is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Contact: writetokevinp@gmail.com. All e-mails are presumed to be for publication on the site unless I am specifically and politely told otherwise - if you’re rude I’ll publish them just to hack you off. All comments are subject to deletion or revision should the author find them offensive or just simply not like you. Trolling will not be tolerated.

  © Blogger templates ProBlogger Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP