Thompson: Would he 'Order' a flawed 'Law'?
Poor Team Thompson. When likely candidate Fred seemingly implied last week that he is fully in support of a federal marriage amendment, they (rightfully) caught shit from those who recognize such a measure for the needless, cruel, discriminatory nonsense that it is. Then, when they issued a correction to the blog of National Review saying that Fred was NOT in favor of a constitutional ban at this time, they started getting it from social conservatives like Matt Barber. Well now, one-time presidential candidate and uber-anti-gay Gary Bauer has chimed in on the whole situation, perhaps providing more insight than the Thompson camp would have wished. Bauer tells One News Now:
"A number of us have met privately with Senator Thompson, and he's made it absolutely clear that he opposes same-sex marriage," says Bauer. During that conversation, Bauer shares, the former senator voluntarily explained that while he is a federalist -- that is, he favors states making most of the important decisions affecting them -- he also realizes there are some things that cannot be left to the states.
"And [he said] one of those is marriage," says the American Values president. "[He said that] marriage, if it's going to be between a man and a woman, has to be between a man and a woman in every state." Bauer also points out that when Thompson served in the U.S. Senate, he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.
Hmm...so what gives? Are we to believe his political corrections or his supposed private promises? Does he offensively want gays to remain unmarried, or does he EVEN MORE offensively want gays to remain unmarried? Is he going to more fully alienate those who are in the right, or is he going to completely alienate those who are in the far right? Hell, is the man even going to run at all??!?!
Well Gary Bauer, for one, thinks that in the next few days Thompson will make it "absolutely clear that [he] does support a federal marriage amendment." We say: "Ha, ha..absolutely clear. That's cute. After all, modern politics is not a game that is played with anything resembling clarity, but rather in poll-reading, pandering sound bites that primarily express a candidate's desire to say whatever it takes to get elected, not what's truly in their conscience. Fred's wishy-washiness on this subject is just one more example of this."
So he "realizes there are some things that cannot be left to the states," but seems to think that does not include equality under the law for gays wanting to get married. But does include such basic constitutional protections for heterosexuals.
I love the political double talk. Surly I should be thanking him for throwing us a bone, for the "possible" but not "plausible" right for individual sates to grant us marriage while allowing other states to beat us with it.
If he thinks this "clarification" will appease the gay community he is sadly more ignorant than I imagined. To many years playing fiction wont make it fact.
Posted by: Patrick B | Aug 23, 2007 1:05:37 PMcomments powered by Disqus