Sep 14, 2007  |  By: JOSHUA LYNSEN  | COMMENTS     

Just days after joining the presidential race, Republican candidate Fred Thompson has angered many gay voters by calling for a constitutional amendment to “stop gay marriages.”

In comments published Monday by online magazine Salon, Thompson proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow states to ignore marriages performed elsewhere, a choice already allowed by federal law.

He said the amendment also should forbid judges from independently enacting same-sex marriage. An Iowa judge briefly permitted gay couples to marry last month after he ruled their exclusion was unlawful.

“It’s a judge-made problem,” he said in videotaped comments made aboard his campaign bus. “It’s a judicial, activist, local role, judge-made problem — people who are taking the law and standing it on its head.”

Patrick Sammon, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, said Thompson’s proposal stops short of resurrecting the failed Federal Marriage Amendment, which sought to define marriage as being solely between a man and a woman.

“It is a pretty huge difference from the Federal Marriage Amendment that President Bush supported,” he said. “This proposal would not prohibit state legislatures from passing gay marriage.”

But many gay activists said Thompson’s proposal would nonetheless enshrine discrimination in the U.S. Constitution.

“Amending the Constitution to discriminate is the worst case scenario,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of the marriage equality advocacy group Freedom to Marry. “As Americans, we ought to oppose writing discrimination into our Constitution, no matter how it’s packaged or who is the target.”

Messages left with Thompson’s campaign were not immediately returned.

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese also criticized the proposal, calling it an obvious attempt to please the party’s conservative base.

“It sounds like Fred Thompson’s simply trying to write discrimination into the Constitution in a more creative way,” he said. “And on this one, I don’t think he’s going to get points for creativity from anyone on the right or the left.”

Thompson’s proposed amendment does not expressly bar same-sex couples from marrying.

“My approach would attack the problem where the problem is, and that is the judiciary,” he said, “with, at the end of the day, if some state legislature, if the Iowa state legislature, the Tennessee state legislature, decided to do otherwise, they’d be free to do that.”

Sammon said such an approach wouldn’t sit well with social conservatives.

“They don’t want the door left open for same-sex marriage in the future,” he said. “They want to stop it from happening at all costs.”

But at the same time, Wolfson said, Thompson’s proposal could irk gay voters and others.

“He shouldn’t have much of a chance with anyone who cares about basic American values, such as equality under the law, respect for the Constitution and treating others as you would like to be treated yourself,” Wolfson said. “You don’t have to be gay to care about those values.”


‘A double-minded person’

In the months leading to his campaign kickoff last week, Thompson repeatedly shifted his approach to marriage equality.

While he frequently noted his opposition to gay marriage, Thompson did not consistently support or oppose a constitutional amendment expressly prohibiting such unions.

He often said states should be allowed to make their own decisions on the matter, but then told CNN he would support an amendment banning gay marriage.
“I think he hasn’t given this a lot of thought,” Wolfson said. “He certainly doesn’t seem to have much sincerity. I think it will be seen for what it is — bad pandering.”

Thompson’s camp eventually issued a statement clarifying his stance.

“If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states,” it said. “Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.”

Matthew Staver, chair of the Liberty Counsel, told the Associated Press this week that Thompson’s failure to back a ban could limit his appeal to conservative religious voters.

“At one time, he said he was against it,” Staver said. “Then he said in June he was for it. So if he’s now saying he’s against it, to me that’s a double-minded person. And that would be a real concern for religious conservatives.”

But while some people were disappointed Thompson would not seek to ban gay marriage outright, others were troubled by the judicial restrictions he proposed.
“Certainly, I’m concerned by his comments,” Sammon said. ...