Thompson stance on marriage amendment a 'liability'

Thompson stance on marriage amendment a 'liability'

A prominent pro-family activist says likely Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson's current opposition to a federal marriage protection amendment may erode some of his support among Christian voters and social conservatives.

Fred Thompson was asked Friday by CNN whether, as president, he would "actively push a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage." Thompson responded "Yes." However, his campaign has issued a statement attempting to clarify his stance. According to Team Thompson, the former Tennessee senator "would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states," but he "does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage."

Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America, says Thompson's position has the potential to undercut enthusiasm the pro-family base of the GOP may have for his probable White House run.

"A federal amendment that would protect marriage as between one man and one woman is very important to the pro-family evangelical base of Republican Party," Barber observes. "I think it will be a tremendous liability for any candidate who does not support such an amendment."

The CWA spokesman also contends that the problem Thompson's campaign has indicated would prompt him to support a federal marriage amendment already exists.

"Apparently he doesn't see the writing on the wall or doesn't see the problem that already exists: that states such as Vermont and Massachusetts are already essentially exporting homosexual marriage or civil unions to other states," says Barber; "and one case in particular, Miller v. Jenkins in Virginia has essentially looked to Vermont's laws and has recognized a civil union in Vermont for purposes of determining child custody."

Barber says Thompson's stance on a federal marriage amendment -- which the pro-family activist sees as the only real remedy to the problem -- seemingly contradicts the former senator's past support for federalism.