Good morning. Conservatives, how do you feel about Fred Thompson's stance on gay marriage?

Question

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-10-01-thompson-gay-marriage_N.htm

EXCERPT FROM ARTICLE:
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.

That's amazing how some think gay marriage is a non-issue, yet they answer this very question.

I can't stand hypocrites.

Answer 1

True conservatives know that matters like this are best legislated by the states.

Answer 2

Good Morning. Well, although , of course, I prefer that legislatures would also be prohibited from legalizing gay marriage ( because I believe gay marriage legalizes immoral acts), I also think that if it must be left up to the individual state legislatures, then the citizens of those states can decide whether they want to live with it or not in their state.
As for Fred Thompson, I have formed an opinion of him yet as a candidate.

Answer 3

Actually that sounds pretty fair.. If you don't like the states vote and law on it, then move out. But what it all boils down to is this, each and every person will be reasponsible for their own health insurance, pensions, and social security. Which is the comon trend for which these changes have all ready been made. Way ahead of the game. Unfairness in many ways to the family structure. Since homosexual couples will and do make more money then the average family. Hence the need for seperate benefits. But they already know this, so Hillery Clinton purposes a 5,000 benefit to every child born in the US, if she becomes president.. Guess who will be paying for that one mostly? The gay couple who makes more money and has two high paying jobs silly.. How fair is that now? That would be no matter what.. Since they will pay it out of their income.

Answer 4

I agree with him fully. Some strange man or woman, a so-called judge, in my opinion, doesn't have the right to change the foundation of Marriage, or force upon the majority of citizens gay marriage, which is against the laws of God. Christians made this Nation, God's name is on our money, and in Romans chapter one it plainly states, that for a man to be with a man, or animal, IS an abomination.You don't have to believe in the Bible, or even God, I'm not saying that, but I am saying gay marriage is unaccepted by the majority of the people who live in the USA, and the majority rules, really, not a so-called judge. Regardless of whether or not one accepts God, or any religion, that is what this issue narrows down to. Is gay marriage right or wrong? The point of marriage is not love, folks, in the Old Testament God made it clear, marriage is for the reproduction of humanity, and gays can't have children. Point blank.

Answer 5

Typical conservative he wants a Constitutional Amendment for this and a Constitutional Amendment for that, and a Constitutional Amendment for anything and everything as long as it shoves his conservative agenda down our throats. Why not let the states decide what to do about same sex marriage. If someone of the same sex is married in Massachusetts where it may be legal that union, while not allowed in Utah, should still be recognized by Utah in certain ways as a courtesy to Mass.

Answer 6

I view this issue the same way. I think a 10th Amendment analysis is appropriate for these social issues.

But I also view gay marriage as a violation of separation of church and state. If you research the history of our laws, you can see they come from the English Common Law. Prior to the Common Law, Ecclesiastical Courts ruled England. Our forefathers saw fit to keep religion and law separate. Marriage is an ordinance of the church and is regulable solely for the purpose of the health and safety of offspring.

ADDED (for niles): The Full Faith and Credit Clause already has exceptions allowable for laws "repugnant" to the public policy of another state. And the proper recourse would be the Supreme Court, not Congress, regardless.

Answer 7

Thompson apparently doesn't understand how the Constitution works. Under his amendment, gay marriage would essentially be permanently banned. Even if a state legislature legalized it, gay people could be denied their right to marry because judges would be unable to enforce the law.

Answer 8

I think taking gay marriage debate away from the federal government is a great idea.

I'm tired of all the time wasted talking about it and votes based on this and other moral issues when far more important issues deserve the federal government's undivided attention.

Let the states decide by referendum.

Answer 9

It will probably have to be dealt with federally at some point. State choice is fine, but what happens when a gay couple is married in a state that allows it, then moves to a state in which such a union is not recognized? Does the new state have to recognize it as a "marriage" for legal purposes even if it doesn't allow it from its own citizens?

Answer 10

Marriage is a religious institution. The government has no business being involved in legislating it. They should however encourage states to make legal civil unions have the same benefits as a marriage.