Looks like Fred is going after that coveted fag-bashing constituency. Let the games begin.
If you thought that when Fred Thompson threw his hat in the ring as a presidential candidate the GOP had found its moderate savior, think again.
Sure he's an actor (like Ronald Reagan!) and has presumably rubbed elbows with all those Hollywood gays. But that doesn't mean he's gay-friendly. He isn't, even if he used to oppose a federal marriage amendment.
That's right. Used to.
On Sept. 7 Thompson "clarified" his position on an anti-gay amendment to the United States Constitution. "I would support a constitutional amendment which says some off-the-wall court decision in one state that recognizes the marriage in one state, like Massachusetts, just to pick a state, cannot go to another state and have it recognized in that state. You are not bound by what another state does," he said according to Salon.com. "The second part of my amendment would also state that judges could not impose this [gay marriage], on the federal or state level, unless a state legislature signed off on it."
Gosh, who wouldn't support an amendment that included important-sounding legal jargon like "off-the-wall?"
So let me get this straight: under Thompson's amendment states wouldn't have to honor the laws of other states (which is inherently unconstitutional, not to mention the fact that the Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 already does this) and judges couldn't rule in favor of marriage equality without getting the legislature's okay (which also smells unconstitutional).
Six months earlier Thompson sang a different tune when he told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that he believed marriage was between a man and a woman and that he thought civil unions, while not a good idea, "ought to be left up to the states."
"People are going to have different ideas," Thompson said. "That's why we have states. We ought to give great leeway to states and not have the federal government and not have the Supreme Court of the United States making social policy that's contrary to the traditions of this country and changing that overnight."
Whether or not his new position makes any sense, it probably sounded good to frightened Iowa conservatives who saw civilization as they know it nearly implode when a judge struck down their marriage ban and during the four hour moral free-fall that ensued two gay guys actually got married. In Iowa.
It was this very thing that prompted an Iowa voter to ask Thompson, "My question is what society's position should be on deviancy, including homosexuality?" According to Salon, Thompson said the government should treat everyone the same way, and that "we should not set aside categories to give special set-aside treatments" to specific groups.
While he may have flip-flopped on the amendment issue, Thompson's "special rights" stance has been consistent at least since March 11, 2007 when he said on Fox News Sunday, "Gay rights? I think that we ought to be a tolerant nation. I think we ought to be tolerant people. But we shouldn't set up special categories for anybody. And I'm for the rights of everybody, including gays, but not any special rights."
Looks like Fred is going after that coveted fag-bashing constituency. Let the games begin.
