Former Sen. Fred Thompson may run

Status
Not open for further replies.
Former Sen. Fred Thompson is considering throwing his hat in the ring for President. I was hoping to hear that he was.
Click to expand...

Damn, I'm gonna miss him on "Law and Order" I like him a lot better there than I ever did when he was in the Senate.

On the other hand, the last actor we had as President did quite OK, at least in his first term.
 
I'll vote for him. Finally someone I'd like to vote for, rather than the lesser of two evils. Look at the other choices we have. He's a step up from those liberals in conservative clothing. YMMV. Regards 18DAI.
 
I'm betting its not going to happen. He's too intelligent to give up a lucrative career in broadcasting for a no-win career in politics.
 
HuntAndFish said:
I'm betting its not going to happen. He's too intelligent to give up a lucrative career in broadcasting for a no-win career in politics.
Click to expand...

4236109642


Stranger things have happened..... :D

He's got my vote..... :cool:
 
Opposes gay marriage, but would let states decide whether to allow civil unions. "Marriage is between a man and a woman, and I don't believe judges ought to come along and change that."
Click to expand...

Who says marriage is between a man and a woman? If any church is willing to define marriage as between a man and a man, then who is the state to change this? First amendment, just as important as the second.

Supports President Bush's decision to increase troops in Iraq. "Wars are full of mistakes. You rectify things. I think we're doing that now," he said. "Why would we not take any chance, even though there's certainly no guarantees, to not be run out of that place? I mean, we've got to take that opportunity and give it a chance to work."
Click to expand...

I can think of over 3,000 reasons (and those are just ours) why we might not want to take that chance. You're gambling with lives. Doesn't mean we shouldn't, just that there is reason not to.

No way on earth I'd vote for this guy. I'd consider grudgingly giving him my vote in order to vote against somebody else, but that's about it.
 
Not only does religion say marriage is between man and woman, but so does biology. If you doubt that, look at yourself in a mirror(naked) and then look at a naked woman. Anyone who can't see the obvious is seriously impaired and shouldn't be allowed to make decisions without supervision. Sexual perversion is allowed in the privacy of the home, but should not be given any legal standing under law. I don't tell anyone what to do, or whom to love, but I will not grant legal status to perverted desire. Nuff said?
 
Not only does religion say marriage is between man and woman, but so does biology. If you doubt that, look at yourself in a mirror(naked) and then look at a naked woman. Anyone who can't see the obvious is seriously impaired and shouldn't be allowed to make decisions without supervision. Sexual perversion is allowed in the privacy of the home, but should not be given any legal standing under law. I don't tell anyone what to do, or whom to love, but I will not grant legal status to perverted desire. Nuff said?
Click to expand...

No, not "'nuff said." "Religion" does not say marriage is between a man and a woman...at least not as long as I can find a single church willing to marry two men or two women. Your religion might, but the first amendment doesn't just protect your religion.

Also, there are other species on this planet that engage in homosexual interactions regardless of obvious gender differences.

Lastly, a white woman wanting to marry a black man was once considered a perverted desire.

You fail on several levels.

EDIT: Also, you mention not granting "legal status"...so do you oppose civil unions as well? Full legal status same as marriage, but without using the word. Perhaps the government should get out of the business of defining "marriage" in general, and only grant civil unions to everybody gay or straight. Let the individual churches decide which the "M" word should apply to.
 
No, he does not.

You fail by hauling out an utterly disreputable comparison of (a) granting legal/religious approbation to sodomite relationships to (b) marital relations between a man and a woman of different racial makeup.

But then again, none of this is firearms related, is it?
 
No, he does not.

You fail by hauling out an utterly disreputable comparison of (a) granting legal/religious approbation to sodomite relationships to (b) marital relations between a man and a woman of different racial makeup.

But then again, none of this is firearms related, is it?
Click to expand...

I figured if we're talking about a presidential candidate more than just his gun stance is related. I'm silly like that. Also:

Round table discussions range from the Bill of Rights, to concealed carry, to general political issues.
Click to expand...

I've related this to the Bill of Rights (has ten whole amendments, guns are covered only in the second), and it's definitely a general political issue.


And that was just one of three arguments I made against his post. And the least important, really...the first was the biggie.

The first amendment (that's the one that comes before the gun one) prohibits both the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Recognizing the marriages of one church while failing to recognize the marriages of another dabbles a bit in both as far as I'm concerned. And considering the various legal benefits and rights provided to spouses because of their status, significant harm is done by this. Unless you can show how marrying two consenting adults (and the government recognizing that marriage) somehow violates the rights of either partner, or violates yours, then I'm pretty sure not allowing them the same legal status as anybody else violates their rights.

At which point I fail to see how Fred Thompson is any better for the BoR as a whole than anybody else. I mean sure, I'm not gay (and I'll make the assumption that few here are, and even fewer openly) so it might make sense to go for Thompson since he's protecting a right that affects me more. Then again, how does that make me any better than the hunters who are more than willing to see your AR-15 banned just as long as they get to keep their duck gun?
 
Mr. Thompson's point was that he did not think the issue of "gay marriage" should be decided by judicial fiat.

Marriage is a legal contract that the states have sole authority to regulate. Domestic relationships fall clearly within a state's police power to legislate. The inherent problem is created by the "full faith and credit" clause. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1.

I am not familiar with the specifics of civil unions, but I suppose they could include language that limits reciprocity. After all, why should one state be allowed to dictate the recognition of same sex marriage in the other 49 states.

I realize that proponents of same sex marriage assert that the states are infringing on their individual liberties. I am not going to address it here, because as was so succintly stated previously:
But then again, none of this is firearms related, is it?
Click to expand...
 
Mr. Thompson's point was that he did not think the issue of "gay marriage" should be decided by judicial fiat.
Click to expand...

Well, that and he doesn't think gay marriage should be allowed at all. That's what the first "marriage is between a man and a woman" part of his statement is all about. As in most cases I suspect he doesn't really much care how it's being changed (though judges are a good target), but rather that it's changing at all.

I realize that proponents of same sex marriage assert that the states are infringing on their individual liberties. I am not going to address it here, because as was so succintly stated previously:
But then again, none of this is firearms related, is it?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I'm asserting...that in this case the rights regarding expression of religion (and prohibitions on establishment) should prevent states from recognizing heterosexual marriages while not recognizing homosexual ones, provided a church wants to marry them.

And is L&P only for firearms-related legal and political issues? Because I see several threads on the first page that aren't firearms related at all. And when discussing a political candidate is their stance on gun control the only thing worthy of discussion? Is that the only stance allowed to be discussed here?
 
And when discussing a political candidate is their stance on gun control the only thing worthy of discussion? Is that the only stance allowed to be discussed here?
Click to expand...

That would make all these threads on candidates and potential candidates like 3 posts long. . . .
 
Marriage is a legal contract. It has only as much to do with religion as the persons getting married want.

A state's power to prohibit same sex marriage is not based on any particular religious dogma, but rather on the states inherent police power.

Personally, I don't give a whit whether states recognize same sex marriage or not. I simply assert that states have the power to regulate marriage as they see fit.

The problem with trying to make a 14th amendment equal protection argument is that homosexuals are not a protected class. The marriage law as written does not discriminate based on race, gender, national origen, or religion.
 
I see some oxen being gored here...obviously, some folks idea of freedom only runs to guns :)


WildinowpronounceyouhusbandandhusbandAlaska
 
The problem with trying to make a 14th amendment equal protection argument is that homosexuals are not a protected class. The marriage law as written does not discriminate based on race, gender, national origin, or religion.
Click to expand...

See, and oddly I don't see how this isn't discrimination based on gender. Obviously my knowledge of the law in this case is lacking, but I see two parties willing to enter into a contract, and both parties are being disallowed from doing so based on their gender. Any woman on the planet would legally be allowed to enter into the same contract with Adam, yet Steve cannot due solely to his gender...and vice versa.

Obviously this isn't the case legally (since otherwise some lawyer smarter than I would have used this argument long ago...then again, perhaps he was simply heard by some judge that shared MacGillie's opinion on the matter)...perhaps later I'll try to do some reading on why this is.

Also, if religious dogma is in no way involved, then why (in many states) are clergy allowed to preside over the union in lieu of a judge?

Off for now...I'll likely be back later to see where this goes.

EDIT: Also, if a mod wanted to spit the relevant posts off I'd see no reason we couldn't do this in a separate "gay marriage" thread...obviously we stopped talking about Fred Thompson by now. I'd start a new thread myself, but without the last few posts it seems like we'd lose context.
 
Wildalaska
"I see some oxen being gored here...obviously, some folks idea of freedom only runs to guns"
Click to expand...

That's a little over the top. What most people argue on these threads has to do with rights as enumerated in the Constitution and the BOR. Not what some activist judge thinks the Constitution needs to mean.
 
See, and oddly I don't see how this isn't discrimination based on gender.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I have to agree with this statement. Plus, the whole argument against gay marriage is a waste of energy. At this point, divorce rates are way too high to support the "gay marriage destroys family values" argument. It is the people that are already married that are destroying family values.
Arranged marriages have a better success rate!

How's the old joke go? "Why are divorces so expensive? Because they're WORTH it!"

Great quote from Hardball which is discussing this (specifically Fred Thompson): "Nobody has captured the hearts and minds of the conservatives, which is why Fred is looking to fill a void."
 
That's a little over the top. What most people argue on these threads has to do with rights as enumerated in the Constitution and the BOR. Not what some activist judge thinks the Constitution needs to mean.
Click to expand...

As Wildalaska said, often the definition of "activist" judge is "judge you don't agree with." Example.

And do we want to talk about rights enumerated in the Constitution? I've read the second amendment many times...it doesn't seem to me that "bear," "arms," and "infringe" are too clearly defined. But folks here (including myself) are all for an extremely liberal interpretation of that particular right because it suits us. However, now that we're talking about the first (and fourteenth) amendments as they relate to two dudes getting hitched, we (meaning you) suddenly favor very narrow interpretations.

Applying the same standard to the second amendment, I see nowhere in that text that the right to own high-capacity magazines, or carry concealed, or to own without registration, or all kinds of other "rights" folks here like to assume we have are specifically enumerated.

EDIT: Also, I've yet to hear a decent argument against allowing gay marriage that wasn't based on religion (hint: most "family values" arguments stem from religion as well). I've heard few that were even particularly well thought out; most resort to words such as "sodomy/sodomite" or "perversion" in order to demonize homosexuals. Guess what: my wife and I have engaged in acts that many states define as "sodomy," and that many people would consider "perverted." Still, our marriage license is no less valid.

There is the classic "homosexual relationships go against nature, because they cannot produce offspring" argument; usually an interesting attempt, but often falls flat. Especially when we allow voluntarily sterile (vasectomy, hystorectomy) heterosexual couples to marry. They aren't exactly going to produce offspring either, especially in the case of hystorectomies. So it isn't simply about biology.

Essentially, I fail to see how this isn't a first amendment issue when nearly every argument used to prevent gays from marrying at the state level is rooted in religion. Additionally, since it was brought up, I fail to see how this isn't a fourteenth amendment issue since at it's root it's nothing but gender discrimination. Two willing partners cannot enter into contract because of their shared gender; were they of different gender, they could. Each person is essentially being discriminated against seperately due to gender, and I don't see how this somehow "cancels out" because it's both of them.

Perhaps somebody here will come up with something. I doubt it, though.

Great quote from Hardball which is discussing this (specifically Fred Thompson): "Nobody has captured the hearts and minds of the conservatives, which is why Fred is looking to fill a void."
Click to expand...

What void is that? Party-line Republican who is moderately more famous? When somebody who is pro-rights rather than simply pro-gun enters the ring, wake me.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top