A Correction To Thompson’s Stance On Gay Marriage

Got an interesting email from the Fred Thompson campaign last night.  And no, it wasn’t a plea for money or some bit of mass produced and ill-targeted propaganda.  No, the email came via Jon Henke, Fred Thompson’s “new media strategies” guy.

For those not in the know, that means the guy on the campaign who does blogs and myspace stuff.

The email was in regards to this post, which among other things drew a line of similarity between President Bush, and President hopeful Thompson in that they both wanted to constitutionally ban gay marriage.

But according to Henke, this is a mischaracterization of Thompson’s true position, and the campaign has released the following statement as a result:

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.

Now I just watched the video again, you know, just out of curiosity, and you can too right here.  But here is a rushed transcript of what is said in the part of the video that directly addresses gay marriage:

King: Would a president Fred Thompson push a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage? Would a President Thompson actively push to over turn Roe v. Wade?  What are the answers to those questions?

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 oughtta be able to pass a law uh requiring gay marriage or allowing gay marriage and have another state be required to following along.  uh.  Under full faith and credit.  Uh there’s some exceptions–exemptions for that… hadn’t happened yet but I think a federal court (garble) very well likely go in that direction and I think a constitutional amendment would cure that.

Alright, so maybe the yesses at the beginning might be a bit of a dead giveaway, but let’s chalk those up to Fred just warmin’ up (note, Fred, if you don’t want major media organizations to mischaracterize your arguments, stop talking like a yokel, that might help), other wise the comments in the interview are for the most part consistent with the campaign’s statement.

Though I can hardly find ground to all of a sudden start agreeing with Fred on the issue.  It’s kind of like a partial Gay Marriage ban, and one thing I find totally absurd is this simple idea; how can you be married in one state, and then, after you cross over the state border, poof, you’re not married anymore?  Noooooo, that’s not unfair treatment at all, and definitely not eerily subjugating.

Here’s the thing, I’m most definitely 100% for gay marriage, though I think the timing is just a little too soon to push for it.  Polling data suggests that older voters, particularly the very powerful and mobilized over sixties bloc is for the most part against gay marriage.  On the other hand those in my voting bloc, under thirty, are widely  in support of gay marriage.

The message here is to wait a little bit, and take your time.

Despite this, there are those who would conspire against progress though it seems inevitable.  There will come a time when this will boil over and the subject of gay marriage will undergo a substantial shift in the national debate.  All these bans are doing is desperately trying to hold off the inevitable while at the same time drive us apart as a nation.

It should be noted, from now on, this courting of the social conservative Religious Right is synonymous with Rovian dirty tricks politics, the politics of division.  Welcome aboard Fred, you may dress up like an outsider, but you still smell like a divisive jackass.

4 Responses to “A Correction To Thompson’s Stance On Gay Marriage”

  1. matttbastard says:

    FYI: In case you or any readers were unaware, Jon Henke blogs at QandO.

  2. That Jon Henke? QandO is Fred Thompson’s new media strategist?

    *Sigh*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook