Thompson's Trouble

Jonathan Martin at the Politico observes that Fred Thompson's efforts to secure support from a broad social conservative network group have been hampered by the fact that he's "confirmed that, because of his federalist views, he would not back the [federal marriage] amendment." Jon Chait remarks:

Why not? In the absence of any motive for this otherwise-baffling decision, the answer seems to be that Thompson actually has some principles, and is unwilling to sacrifice them in order to become president. Frankly, I never anticipated this possibility.

Me neither. It's really odd. But good for him. Although "federalist principles" has always struck me a pretty weak reason for opposing this measure. I mean, if I really thought Andrew's wedding was a clear and present danger to other people's families, I'm not sure I could make the case for why federalism should trump that.

Comments

If gay guys can't get married then we also have to respect minority (i.e. black) rights. 'Federalist principles' = 'states rights' = racist bigot.

Posted by Mind Reader | September 28, 2007 10:04 AM

Maybe because he does not personally oppose gay marriage - he is an actor after all. He cannot say so (to appear conservative) but is unwilling to push a federal amendment banning something he doesn't see as a particular evil. Hence the federalist principles cover. Seen from this perspective, he seems more practical than principled.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | September 28, 2007 10:13 AM

I mean, if I really thought Andrew's wedding was a clear and present danger to other people's families,

Wise up man. It has already ruined mine.

Posted by r4d20 | September 28, 2007 10:21 AM

2cynical is right. Federalism is silly; the "principle" here is almost certainly just that Thompson has plenty of gay friends and acquaintances and genuinely sees nothing wrong with their getting married (or their existence generally, for that matter.) But if he said that, his candidacy would really be dead.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | September 28, 2007 10:26 AM

We're all Federalists (as Jefferson said), left and right, or at least we ought to be. The difference between left and right on Federalism has to do with the particular issues we think are the respective provinces of the state and federal governments.

Civil rights issues are properly federal, we lefties think, and we won that issue at the time of the Civil War, and again in the 50's and 60's.

On the other hand, the laws of marriage and domestic relations are properly state issues, as long as the state laws are consistent with the federal constitution. Smaller, local government can handle such mundane issues more efficiently, and anyway, that's the way the constitution was written.

So Thompson is more or less right on this one (stopped clock). If you don't think there is a federal due process/ equal protection right to same sex marriage, if you think that whether to allow same sex marriage is an issue of policy rather than of civil rights, then it follows that the states are the proper units of government to deal with the issue (subject to the federal government's power to determine how much "full faith and credit" each state must give to marriages recognized by other states)--just as we let the states determine whether cousins can marry, with varying results.

Posted by rea | September 28, 2007 10:41 AM

If gay guys can't get married then we also have to respect minority (i.e. black) rights. 'Federalist principles' = 'states rights' = racist bigot. - Mind Reader

Thompson simply didn't get the memo -- "we no longer use dog-whistle/coded messages to communicate our hatred of Blacks ... we now hate gays and Muslims, so please update the coded-messages you send accordingly".

Posted by DAS | September 28, 2007 10:49 AM

No one could have anticipated that Fred Thompson might take a principled stand on an issue!

Posted by low-tech cyclist | September 28, 2007 10:54 AM

Re low-tech cyclist

Mr. low-tech cyclist means unlike Mitt Romney, the worlds' greatest flip flopper.

Posted by SLC | September 28, 2007 11:11 AM

ederalism is silly

In this case or in general?

Posted by r4d20 | September 28, 2007 12:45 PM

I happen to be one of those guys who believes that the federal government has no business defining marriage. I mean, I applauded the SCOTUS decision in US v Morrison striking down parts of the Violence Against Women Act on federalism principles, even though I abhor violence against women. I also take the "federal government has no business here" stance in the medical marijuana case Gonzales v Raich.

That being said, I'm a bit surprised that apparently I'm a racist bigot. I think translating "Racists use federalism to justify their political beliefs" to "People who use federalism to justify their political beliefs are racists" is some sort of logical fallacy (maybe even with a name), or a failure to apply Bayes Theorem or something.

Posted by Shane | September 28, 2007 12:47 PM

r4d20:

In this case primarily, but also in general. Obviously there are functions that are better handled by state or local governments, that's why we have them. But there's no fundamental principle involved. The idea that state governments are somehow "closer to the people" is no longer remotely true, if it ever was. How many people know the name of their state rep, as opposed to their congressman? How many people really identify as a Virginian more than as an American? How many people can sign their state anthem or would even recognize their state flag?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | September 28, 2007 1:00 PM

the federal government has no business defining marriage

Now this is nonsense on stilts. People move between states all the time, work in different states, even sometimes marry someone from another state. It's utterly unworkable for a couple to be considered married in Ohio but not in Indiana. And I suppose state miscegenation laws should still be allowed, per the "federalists"?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | September 28, 2007 1:08 PM

Re: It's utterly unworkable for a couple to be considered married in Ohio but not in Indiana.

State laws on marriage have differed since the beginning of the republic, and somehow we have lived with the above possibility for over 200 years. Back in the early 19th century it was even worse as some states allowed divorce and some states did not. Andrew Jackson married a divorced woman and could not travel with her to a non-divorce state like South Carolina since they could have been prosecuted there for bigamy.

Posted by Jonf | September 28, 2007 1:30 PM

"On the other hand, the laws of marriage and domestic relations are properly state issues, as long as the state laws are consistent with the federal constitution. Smaller, local government can handle such mundane issues more efficiently, and anyway, that's the way the constitution was written."

Except it's a question of fundamental and equal rights, just as the civil rights movement was. Why is it ok for Oklahoma to ban gay marriage but for Massachusetts to have it? Is being gay and in love so much different in Massachusetts than in Oklahoma that gays in Oklahoma don't deserve it?

Posted by Reality Man | September 28, 2007 1:55 PM

I have long suspected that Fred doesn't really want to be president, but he likes the attention he's been getting for kind of running (as does his wife, apparently). Maybe he's just subtly trying to intentionally torpedo his own chances (or as he may see it, the risk) of actually winning the nomination. And what's the best way to drive off GOP primary voters: Take a principled stance on a complex issue.

Posted by Doug-E-Fresh | September 28, 2007 1:56 PM

Except it's a question of fundamental and equal rights, just as the civil rights movement was. Why is it ok for Oklahoma to ban gay marriage but for Massachusetts to have it?

Reality man, you misunderstand me. I agree with you that as a matter of federal constitutional law same sex marriage ought to be permitted (as a gay man in a 16-uear relationship, I could hardly beleive otherwise). Similarly, state antimiscegenaton laws violate the federal constituion and are therefore invalid.

If, however, like Thompson, you do not beleive that any federal constitutional rights are involved, then it makes perfect sense for this to be resolved on a state-by-state basis.

Put another way, a federal statute saying that no state shall recognize same sex marriage would be unconstitutional, not only because it denies same sex couples due process/equal protection (presently controversial), but also because Congress has no general authority to make rules for marriage (extremely clear).

Posted by rea | September 28, 2007 3:41 PM