Michael Crawford

Fred Thompson's Not Down With the Gays

Filed By Michael Crawford | August 18, 2007 12:25 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: civil rights, Fred Thompson, gay rights, LGBT, marriage, political campaigns, politics, women's rights

Fred Thompson, the Law and Order actor who is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination, is not a fan of the gays. In fact, not only is he not a fan of the gays, he wants a amendment to enshrine anti-gay discrimination in our nation's constitution to make sure that we know that we are considered second class citizens.

Oh, and he wants a constitutional amendment banning a woman's right to choice.

Here is what he had to say in an interview with CNN reporter John King:

KING: You met this morning privately with some conservative activists in this state, the people who helped people win the caucuses in the past. They say that they were very comfortable with everything said in that private meeting, very comfortable with your agenda. But they say they're skeptical, that they don't want to just hear lipservice; they want to see results. And they want to know over time, as they meet you, would you a President Fred Thompson actively push a presidential amendment banning gay marriage. Would a President Fred Thompson actively push to overturn Roe. V. Wade. What are the answers to those questions?

THOMPSON: Yes, yes, I think that with regard to gay marriage you have a full faith and credit issue. I don't think one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage, or allowing gay marriage, and have another state be required to follow along, under full faith and credit. There's some exceptions and exemptions for that. Hasn't happened yet, but I think a federal court very well likely will go in that direction, and a constitutional amendment would cure that. I think Roe v. Wade was a bad decision. I think it was bad law and bad medicine. You don't just get up one day and overturn the entire history of the country with regard to nature major social policy, without any action by Congress, without any action by the American people or constitutional amendment, and that's what happened. It shouldn't have happened. It ought to be reversed.

And he wouldn't just hang out at Camp David and other presidential vacation spots waiting for those amendments to join the thirteenth amendment which abolished slavery, the nineteenth amendment which granted women the right to vote, or the twenty-sixth amendment which gave citizens 18 and over the right to vote. He would actively use the bully pulpit of the White House to strip away legal rights from LGBT people and women.

KING: So it wouldn’t be a speech a year or two speeches a year; you would promise on both of those issues a sustained effort if you were the president?

THOMPSON: Well, I don’t think as the president you can do anything halfway. I mean, if you take a position, you’re bringing the whole office of the presidency there, and you have a bully pulpit. You have an obligation to speak about those things that are important to you, and those things are important.

Apparently for Thompson legislatively beating down on LGBT people and women is more important than ensuring that every American has access to quality medical care, affordable housing, good schools and jobs that enable them to take care of their families.

I am waiting with bated breathe for Thompson's announcement that his faux campaign is going to flip the switch and go live. It promises to be a good old anti-gay time.

Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Leland Frances | August 18, 2007 3:36 PM

Gee, Freddy Krueger, er Thompson, does seem mighty interested in winning the wrestling match presently being waged by Rudy "Leave My Family Alone While I Chain Up Yours" Giuliani and Mitt "Does Our Secret Magic Jesus Underwear & Their Iraq-Dodging Make My Sons Look Gay?" Romney for leader of a Fifth Reich [yes, Bush fils still leads the Fourth].

One WANTS to believe that the country would not be taken in by a man who is really nothing more than a folksy but hollow actor with fascist ambitions save one word: REAGAN. One wants to believe that Thompson has waited far too late and that all the key endorsements, money, and hired gun political campaign pros have been tied up by the announced candidates. But then there's the possibility of a deadlocked Repug convention and a Thompson draft to become Commmander in Chief of their Holy War against anyone not like them.

Assuming he then survived the many-toothed attempt of two-legged pit bull Giuilani trying to rip his throat out, and the best relgious miracle Mitt could conjure, we might be in for some trouble.

All the more reason for many of us to expend a little less time and energy and nitpicking on trying to tear apart potential Dem candidates.

Don Sherfick | August 18, 2007 5:59 PM

Yep, I agree with the last sentence of the comment above. If nothing else look at the nature of probable nominees to fill a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy of any Republican hopeful versus that of any Democratic wanna-be-POTUS. Single-issue [read court-watching] LGBT voters, UNITE, you have nothing to lose but whatever awful decisions one more Republican president would surely precipitate!

Anybody notice that he's looking a bit "frail"?

Reading this post I was thinking the same as Leland with respect to Thompson's ability to take the nomination/presidency based on his acting roles which render him a 'familiar' face.

I also agree we shouldn't be so hard on the dem candidates and focus our 'ripping apart' talents on the opposition.

Be vocal. Tell your friends tell you neighbors. Tell them why it should be a woman's choice, and tell them why you should be able to marry your partner.

A while back I read a post on here by Sheila Kennedy. It was actually a guest post by her son about gay panic , where he writes the following:

"But each successive wave of out people makes it easier on those that follow them. It has to begin somewhere... My own coming out has made it easier for a younger generation... Eventually, people will come to see being gay about as threatening to them as left handedness or a different eye color. But this takes many years and many small acts of bravery."

It resonated with me. It made me realize I need to stop taking for granted that those around me understand my situation. They don't. In the weeks since reading the post I have had several conversations with friends who didn't realize my partner and I couldn't get married for immigration purposes - even though we live in Massachusetts - and what that has meant to us financially, mentally, and emotionally.

So, I speak up now. More than before. I believe it is working on a small level, in the spirit or attitude of 'every little bit helps.' And if the opportunity presents itself for you to expose the 'Law & Order dude' as being as dispicable as he is - grab it. Talk about it. Tell poeple.

Fred Thompson is one candidate I sure wish I could afford to ignore. Unfortunately, we probably ignore him at our peril.

I come from a family who is staunchly, rabidly, unthinkingly Republican. Because I actually form my own opinion about things, I'm considered the left-wing, pinko fag of the family. My family is horrified at the thought of Hillary being president. There is a good chance I'll vote for her. If it comes to that, I hope I don't get a note from my own Mom suggesting that maybe it would be best if I not bother coming home for Christmas.

But I digress. By the way, Michael Crawford, I like your new pic better than the old one. And keep up the good work.