GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Note to readers: No, I’m not pushing for Thompson to be on the ticket because the only place that would happen is in Tommy’s Perfect World. Since we live in a place called reality where political matches are made by convenience, there is no point in making any case for such a ticket because it’s not going to happen.
I will continue to occasionally post on Fred when it is relevent, and though I wasn’t planning on doing another FDT update today, Aron Goldman directed my attention to Thompson’s latest post, and I think it’s subject is relevent- relevent to the positions and arguments that I hope the McCain ticket will take.
Here’s the serious text. For the complete analogy, follow the link to read his full post:
Ladies and gentleman, I give you the California supreme court majority and their recent opinion in the same-sex marriage complaints filed by multiple San Francisco gay couples.
On a more serious note, this decision follows “judicial lawmaking” on the subject by courts in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, and Iowa (though many other state courts have heeded their limitations), and causes supporters of the rule of law and the will of the people to rally in response. Those in California say that they will fight for a constitutional amendment. This response highlights the invidious effects of this kind of judicial activism, which reverses the way things are supposed to work in our legal system. These courts, with the stroke of a pen, are now, in effect, amending their constitutions and placing the burden of changing it back (usually a very difficult task), on the people.
Nationally, as a result of this case, there will undoubtedly be renewed calls for a federal constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage. Conservatives should resist the temptation to support such a remedy. States must solve this problem for themselves. They cannot and should not be saved from themselves or absolved of the responsibility that they have, a responsibility protected against federal intrusion by the Tenth Amendment.
In the first place, playing the game of judicial activists, and leaping to the federal-constitutional-amendment remedy every time judges misread the constitution and change the law, is a fool’s errand. Passing two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures has proven to be an impossible hurdle for the marriage amendment and many other proposed constitutional amendments, even when Republicans controlled Congress.
More fundamentally, the issue presented is not whether conservatives will get their way on the issue of same-sex marriage. The issue is, in our system of government, determining the appropriate place for this issue to be decided. For over 200 years marriage and related issues have been the province of state, not federal law. That is where it should remain. States, acting within their appropriate and constitutionally vested realm, should be free to have laws that even you and I disagree with as long as they do not violate established constitutional principles.
For years, legal critics clamored for federal tort reform, which for most of them meant the overriding of state law. After years of unsuccessful efforts by reformers, states finally started accepting their responsibility. State after state passed tort-reform legislation, and maintained their rights to fashion their reform measures as they saw fit with the happy byproduct of lower insurance rates and an influx of new businesses. Those states which do not act, or act unwisely, face a competitive disadvantage with other states …as they should. This is called – say it all together – federalism. It is an important part of our constitutional framework, based upon our founders’ abhorrence of too much centralized power.
So, more power to the people of California in their uphill battle for an amendment to their state constitution. But the real, long-term solution in the future for supporters of the rule of law is ensuring the selection and election of good judges, judges who know their role in a constitutional republic, in the first place, and holding them – and the politicians who appoint and confirm them – accountable.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Do you anti-judicial-activist folks think the courts should’ve allowed majorities to continue to support segregation and ban interracial marriage, sodomy and contraception?
Just curious.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Anytime the court goes beyond its prescribed boundaries as defined in the U.S. Constitution, I will be against them doing so.
Segregation was obviously unconstitional, as was a ban interracial marriage. In the case of gay marriage, they are having to completely redefine the meaning of the world marriage to make it fit. If two guys, or two women want to live together, no one is stopping them. Most Americans believe that marriage is an institution ordained by God himself, and for (4) judges to take it upon themselves to redefine the word marriage to include the sinful act that God destroyed cities over is way out of their boundaries.
In order to equal benefits of various kinds, those issues should be reviewed one item at a time. For example, te death tax could be expanded to allow anyone to designate a special person to receive an inheritance without a tax, or better yet, do what Romney proposed, and do away with it altogether. In the case of the surviving spouse receiving the Social Security when one spouse dies, should this be expanded to gays? It needs to be debated, and determined, but you have to realize that male/female couples produce offspring to keep the system working. No two males and no two females can do that, so it could rightly be determined that if they choose that lifestyle, that is one benefit they may not ever receive. Yes, I said if they CHOOSE that lifestyle.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
And sodomy and contraception?
BTW, while marriage has a religious meaning to many, the government took up the word, so now it is the secular term for the institution as well.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I don’t think that segregation was unconstitutional.
The line of reasoning was that segregation was “inherently unequal”. So they didn’t say “make it equal” — they said that it had to be abolished.
Clearly judicial activism.
So why don’t you support leaving that to the states?
May 19th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Yes, I said if they CHOOSE that lifestyle.
I’ll leave aside your retarded misconceptions about whether homosexuality is a choice to ask you this: why is homosexuality a “lifestyle”, but heterosexuality is never described as such?
Oh, and don’t let that question allow you to avoid #4, either.
Or #3, for that matter.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
#3 - Just because the government took up the word, doesn’t mean they have the right to change its meaning. I didn’t even realize there were laws against contraception. I know that some churches frowned on it, and they have a perfect right as a church to do so. Sodomy laws are stil a part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Personally, I think its sinful, but I have no problems with staying out of the bedrooms as long as they are two consenting adults. Unfortunately, most seem to feel the need to pray on the younger group to try to gain converts. They should be imprisioned. How would you police it anyway; its impractical.
It seems to be that the basic right ‘to the pursuit of happiness’ entails that things need to be ‘equal’ opportunity for all. They may have seen it as impossible to make it equal any other way than to get rid of it altogether.
Don’t you call me retarded…..I have a 143 IQ……and I won’t call you any of the names associated with your lifestyle, ok? There is a lot of proof, absolute proof that people can give up your lifestyle, get married, have a great family, and never ever long to do those things again. Its been done countless times already. Are some people more tempted to engage in it to begin with? Apparently, but its still a choice. Some may be more tempted to cheat on their wife, but its still a choice that they should strive to live within.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I believe that Illinoisguy is correct on this, compare segregation to gay marriage is hardly comparing apples to cucumbers, nevermind oranges.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
So heterosexuals have exclusive use of the word marriage. Are there any other words gays can’t use? What about Mexicans? Perhaps we should solve illegal immigration by barring them from using the word citizen.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Illinoisguy, there’s a world of difference in what you and Alex are talking about. You are talking about controlling behavior, which is certainly possible, while Alex is talking about controlling desire, which is something else entirely. As for your “proof” that people have changed their desires concerning homosexuality, I find it hard to believe. Their actions, yes, given enough pressure and intolerance, but their desires? Care to back up the assertion?
May 19th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
#8 - The word by definition has always meant between a man and a woman….So, yes, they have exclusive rights to the word.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Religious people have an emotional problem with the word “marriage” being used to refer to gay marriage. I get it.
That’s why I’ve said it’s better for gays to seek civil unions with all the equal rights to marriage, only with a different name.
The thing is, we will still use all the same terms in every day speech. They and we will refer to their “spouses,” “weddings,” and being “married.” It would be silly to invent new words for all those things. So, within 20 years, civil unions will be universally referred to as marriages. And state governments will change their paperwork accordingly.
You just have to take things slow for slow people.
Oh, and meanwhile, a bunch of states will go straight to “gay marriage,” bypassing civil unions, making the transition that much faster.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Tell us again Metro how Rudy was going to get the nomination! Who is slow??
May 19th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
#1
Yes. Not because I am in favor of those restrictions but because I am in favor of democracy and the system of checks and balances that we have.
It is ironic that social liberals complain about having others force their values on them, but they have no problem with judges forcing their opinions on the social conservatives.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
^
And what I meant was that judges take away the rights of social conservatives and everyone else when they override the legislative branch by putting their own personal opinion above the constitution.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
sdpride, wow, you really don’t get it.
All those (SoCon) evils involved using government FORCE to prevent people from being free to live differently from you.
Removing FORCE is not FORCING people.
1984, anyone?
Oh, and you admit you’d be happy for all those evils to continue to exist if the majority wanted them. Pure mob rule, huh? Isn’t the whole point of a Constitution to prevent that? Isn’t that what the Republican party fundamentally stands for?
May 19th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Fred Thompson is absolutely wrong.
Sometimes the masses have to take matters into their own hands and use their Constitutional right of amending the constitution. There’s a reason why the Founding Fathers created the amendment process.
Federalism is bogus if it subverts the will of the people.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
#15
All of those “evils” would have been done away with eventually in the right way, ie through the legislature.
Now we have a group of 5 judges who can decide what is “evil” and what isn’t. Sure their rulings went your way a few times, but what happens when they rule against you?
And some of those issues didn’t violate the constitution. I don’t think there is a constitutional right to privacy which would protect the use of contraceptives. I don’t agree with anti-contraceptive laws, but I don’t think they are unconstituional either. Democracy isn’t perfect, but it is the best we have.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
And I never said I would be “happy” if those laws you listed were allowed to exist.