Fred Thompson, a Republican presidential candidate, is calling for a constitutional amendment to ‘stop gay marriages.’ The amendment would allow states to ignore marriages performed elsewhere and forbid judges from independently enacting marriage for gay couples. (Photo by Nati Harnik/AP)
In a video posted this week at Salon.com, Fred Thompson discusses a constitutional amendment he’s proposing to “stop gay marriages.” Below is a transcript of his remarks.
“I am proposing a constitutional amendment that would stop gay marriages as a practical matter in this country. It would have two provisions. One, it would make sure that someone married in Massachusetts, for example, who moved to Tennessee, that Tennessee would not have to recognize that Massachusetts marriage. The second provision would be that no judge could, in effect, impose gay marriage on a state — that that issue would be left up to the state legislature.
“There have been no state legislatures that have affirmatively allowed gay marriage in the United States. It’s a judge-made problem. It’s a judicial, activist, local role, judge-made problem — people who are taking the law and standing it on its head. Marriage is between a man and a woman and that has been accepted through the millennia as the basis of civilization.
“And my approach would attack the problem where the problem is, and that is the judiciary, 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. I don’t think it would ever happen — I would not be supportive of that happening — but I’m also a federalist. I do not think one-size-fits-all, national, federal solutions, absolving the states of their responsibilities for good laws, too, is the way to go. I have felt that way my entire career, and I want to be consistent in that regard.”
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. “They’re different from what he had initially been saying about what kind of amendment he would support.”
Wolfson, a former Lambda Legal staff attorney, also noted that Thompson’s proposal speaks ill of him as a White House contender.
“Candidates who don’t understand that our freedom as Americans rests on our government’s system of checks and balances, including an independent judiciary, are not qualified to lead this nation,” he said.
‘He’s just wrong’
Thompson’s proposed amendment wasn’t the only comment that drew criticism. Wolfson and Sammon said Thompson was wrong to describe himself as a federalist in the two-minute video posted at Salon.
“A federalist wouldn’t propose an amendment like this,” Sammon said, “because it intrudes into state affairs.”
In the video, Thompson said he personally opposes gay marriage, but would let states make their own decision on the issue. He noted the approach was consistent with his federalist approach to politics.
“I do not think one-size-fits-all, national, federal solutions, absolving the states of their responsibilities for good laws, too, is the way to go,” he said. “I have felt that way my entire career, and I want to be consistent in that regard.”
But Sammon said Thompson’s proposal was not rooted in federalism because it violates a state’s independence.
“With federalism, you have faith in a state’s ability to make decisions on their own,” he said. “There’s no distinction between if it’s the state court or the state legislature that makes the decision.”
Activists also criticized Thompson for claiming there are “no state legislatures that have affirmatively allowed gay marriage in the United States.”
Seth Kilbourn, political director at Equality California, said his state’s legislature has twice passed a bill to enact marriage equality.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarz-enegger, a Republican, vetoed the first bill in 2005, but has not taken a position on the bill legislators passed just last week.
“Mr. Thompson is clearly wrong on the facts, which is particularly disturbing for a lawyer who is running for president,” Kilbourn said. “This has been front-page news for a long time, and one wonders if Fred Thompson or his staff is reading a newspaper.”
Freedom to Marry’sEvan Wolfsonsays Fred Thompson doesn’t have enough of a grasp on U.S. law to be a good president. (Photo by Jeff Sheng)
Wolfson, who works in New York, noted that his state’s legislature also is debating a marriage equality bill.
“He’s wrong on the facts,” Wolfson said. “But that can be corrected. His being wrong on his willingness to stand up for the Constitution and the courts that keep us free is even more troubling.”
Although the video posted this week played poorly among many gay voters — reactions posted to it online were vitriolic at times — Sammon said Thompson could yet win some gay supporters.
“It’s early in the campaign,” Sammon said. “He’s going to need to talk more about a variety of issues, including gay issues.”
Sammon noted that Thompson has made security, unity and prosperity his campaign’s key messages.
“He’s not going to be a Sam Brownback or a Mitt Romney,” he said, “making this stuff a major focus of his campaign.”
Nonetheless, Thompson has a poor record on gay issues. While in Congress, he backed efforts to cut off Ryan White CARE Act funding for gay and lesbian health care centers, and opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
He left the Senate in January 2003 with an HRC congressional rating averaging just 16 out of 100. Just this week, a Washington Post-ABC News poll put Thompson in second place in the GOP race, with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in first but losing support fast. Giuliani’s support fell from 37 percent in July to 28 percent in the latest poll, with Thompson at 19 percent.
Sammon declined to say what contact, if any, Log Cabin Republicans have had with the Thompson campaign to work with him on gay issues.
“All I’ll say is we’re reaching out to all the candidates and taking with them about different issues related to equality,” he said. “I don’t want to get into specifics about which candidates we’ve spoken to and which we haven’t, but we’re having some good conversations with different campaigns.”
Joshua Lynsen can be reached at jlynsen@washblade.com.
The
following comments were posted by our readers and were
not edited by the Washington Blade. We ask that you
treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will
be removed.
