Thompson corrects FMA remarks; Barber doesn't realize his team lost
So on Friday, we showed you a brief piece from that afternoon's "The Situation Room," wherein likely presidential candidate Fred Thompson seemingly voiced support for a federal amendment banning same-sex nuptials. Well, almost immediately after those remarks aired, Team Thompson sent the following to a blogger at National Review in order to clarify:
For the record, the Thompson camp has officially noted that "Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage." He supports the rights of States to choose their marriage law for themselves.
The Thompson camp issued this statement:
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.
Hmm...his CNN sound bite really didn't seem all that ambiguous in regards to his desire for a federal amendment. However, we are glad to see Mr. Thompson is now half-way coming out against such a mean-spirited amendment, even if such a backpedaling is simply strategy (and even if we'd be more likely to vote for thin air than for this particular candidate). His team's language about "imposing" marriage and whatnot is still hostile to the concept of gay freedom and equality, and it still unfair. However, it's a tad bit better than the CNN piece led us to believe.
But you know who is NOT happy about Thompson's record correction? The Concerned Women For America's frighteningly gay-unfriendly spokesman Matt Barber (pic), who tells One News Now:
"A federal amendment that would protect marriage as between one man and one woman is very important to the pro-family evangelical base of Republican Party," ... "I think it will be a tremendous liability for any candidate who does not support such an amendment."
"Apparently he doesn't see the writing on the wall or doesn't see the problem that already exists: that states such as Vermont and Massachusetts are already essentially exporting homosexual marriage or civil unions to other states,"... "and one case in particular, Miller v. Jenkins in Virginia has essentially looked to Vermont's laws and has recognized a civil union in Vermont for purposes of determining child custody."
Oh, Matt. How many times must the federal marriage amendment die a fiery congressional death before you kids realize its not ever going to pass? You guys, in the Bush/ Rove/ Santorum/ Musgrave/ Allard era, have seen your cruel attempts to hijack morality entertained for either political or socio-religo gain. However, that short, dark period is moving past us, and the American people are downright enraged with the ill-focused way in which this social conservative-backed troop cared for our country. The federal marriage amendment attempts will be forever linked to the corruption, immoral war, bumblef*cks, and gross mishandlings that have defined America's early 21st century spin around the GOP block. Any candidate who tries to attach rather than detach themselves from these past transgressions might as well roll out the red carpet for a Dem president right now.
There is no "problem" with states imposing their marriage laws on other states at this point. Personally, we see no problem in imposing fairness at any juncture; but even if viewing the situation through the eyes of a "pro-family" conservative, we can honestly say that such is not happening. The Miller v. Jenkins case is far more complex than just one of "forced recognition" of another state's civil unions system. It is a unique parental rights situation that the religious right has taken on as one of their pet cases. But the issue is the child and whether the birth parent has the right to deny the noncustodial parent visitation rights, not whether or not VA should be forced to recognize the (now dissolved) union. Social conservatives like Barber are simply looking for any way to justify their discriminatory pushes, and if they can somehow get a child involved, then that's just gravy.
Bottom line: Even if we gays have a ways to go in terms of equality, the FMA is a relic from a bygone era (in which a "lesbigay-gone" era seemed far too likely a goal). Support for another failed push of such an ignorant piece of garbage is what is truly the liability. Not only for the presidency, but also for decency.
**UPDATE: As noted by Kip Esquire in our comments section: The text purported to be from Team Thompson appears no place other that the National Review's blog. Which is a little fishy.
More from Kip can be found here.
Technorati Tags: puppy
The problem is that the "notice" from "Team Thompson" appears nowhere, absolutely nowhere, other than as a linkless blob of text at NRO.
No press release was issued and nothing appears on the official Thompson website.
Thompson supporters may be selling, but I'm not buying.
Posted by: KipEsquire | Aug 21, 2007 10:54:31 AM
"If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states."
Sounds like DOMA goes Constitutional to me.
Posted by: Jessica | Aug 21, 2007 11:02:51 AM
I have to laugh when Christofacists blather on about "judicial activism" and the spreading of gay marriage. They go on and on about how some activist judge is going to overturn the Federal DOMA. And they are right. Want to know why? DOMA is unconstitutional. It goes against the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution and the Christofacists know it. An activist judge wouldn't be wiping away thousands and thousands of years of history with the swipe of a pen. No, a judge would be wiping away an unconstitutional law - which is exactly what are judges are supposed to do.
Posted by: stojef | Aug 21, 2007 5:02:31 PMcomments powered by Disqus