Alex Blaze

Freddie Thompson can't tell the difference between civil unions and the Soviet Union

Filed By Alex Blaze | October 31, 2007 1:59 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: Fred Thompson, marriage, New Hampshire, New Jersey

Pam found this AP story about Freddie Thompson speaking in New Hampshire:

Questioned about civil unions after a speech at a dental benefits company, Thompson said, "I would not be in support of that."

But when he elaborated, he switched from civil unions, which give gays legal rights equivalent to those of married couples, to same-sex marriages, which are legal only in neighboring Massachusetts.

"Basically so far, it is a judge-made controversy," Thompson said. "No state or governor has signed off on such legislation on the state level that has endorsed marriage between the same sexes. There may have been a couple of courts that said the Constitution of their states has required that, so it's a judicially made situation as far as I am concerned."

This is why no one should be scared of a Thompson run. Actually, I'm hoping he'll win the primary. He doesn't know that there is a state legislature "that's signed off on such legislation" (civil unions or marriage, since I guess we're conflating them), New Hampshire's, the state he happens to be in. And Connecticut's and California's, but, hey, who's counting?

But this is where it gets even better:

Edward Paul, an employee of the Delta Dental Plans Association, asked the question Monday, but had trouble being understood.

"I'm proud to say that in January 2008 New Hampshire has passed a law facilitating civil unions here. ... What is your belief for federal civil unions to be passed?" Paul asked.

"Soviet Union?" Thompson responded.

"No, civil unions," Paul said.

"Oh. No, I would not be in support of that," Thompson said.

Way to be a part of that dialogue, Freddie! I'm sure Edward Paul left feeling like you cared.


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.


Don Sherfick Don Sherfick | October 31, 2007 2:52 PM

Well, among other things, this is the first I've heard concerning the concept of "federal civil unions". Since marriage is a creature of the states (there is no federal marriage license), then I would have assumed civil unions would likewise be a state matter.

But you're right...with that level of comprehension he may be a relatively safe bet (least of several evils?) for the GLBT community, if we have to pay Soviet Union roulette with Republican candidates.

I know, that is the first I've heard of that. But if we follow hillarobamedwards logic that civil unions under them would be the same a marriage, then there'd have to be federal recognition of civil unions. Of course, they haven't explained how they'd work to get federal civil unions leg through, but pish posh, I'm sure we can trust them.

Soviet Union roulette. Haw haw, but seriously, the more we learn about Thompson, the less we need to care if he runs. He impresses me as incredibly incompetent and lazy... wait, I remember saying this about a certain presidential candidate back in 2000 who had some success.