October 5, 2007 3:02 PM
Tancredo talks marriage
View image Photo by M.E. Sprengelmeyer
A gay rights backer briefly interrupted Rep. Tom Tancredo's press conference on the steps of the Iowa Statehouse on Friday, questioning his call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Tancredo shrugged it off and finished his remarks, saying there was new urgency to amend the U.S. Constitution because of an Iowa judge's recent decision that temporarily cleared the way for gay marriage in the state.
Bill Salier, Tancredo's Iowa campaign chairman, recently formed a group that's attempting to remove the Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson from the bench.
"What is happening is a perfect example of why we need a constitutional amendment," Tancredo said, backed by supporters waving campaign signs.
Reporters asked Tancredo about an alternative approach proposed by a Republican presidential rival, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, who has called for an alternative amendment that would prohibit judges from changing the traditional definition of marriage but still allow individual states to decide for themselves.
Tancredo said he was open to Thompson's alternative, even though some religious conservatives have said they want an outright, federal ban on same-sex marriage.
So far, two Colorado lawmakers, Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Loveland, and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Fort Morgan, have fallen short of the two-thirds majorities to advance their proposed amendment.
During a question-and-answer session, Tancredo was challenged audience member Mike Keller of Des Moines, who was legally married to another man in Canada.
Later, Keller said he did not think the constitution should be altered to address the marriage issue, but he also said it was best to protect states' rights.
"On some level, I do buy into the (idea) it should be up to each individual state," Keller said.
October 9, 2007
7:02 AM
Caree writes:
what I was referring to about the fair and balanced reporting was the accurate exchange described here by M.E. between Mr. Tancredo and Mike Keller. I was present and M.E. called it like it truly was. The Iowa media has Tom made out to be screaming at Mike. Not true. Tom kept his composure during the entire exchange. I wouldn't expect anything else from Mr. Tancredo.
It takes a Tanc to run our country!
October 6, 2007
3:10 PM
Caree writes:
This is fair and balanced reporting, Thank you for reporting the facts, M.E. Sprengelmeyer!!
I had the great pleasure of meeting M.E. at the event. I was so excited to meet him and thanked him for hosting the live web chat with Tom during the democratic debate. I told M.E. that Tom supporters follow his column religiously and I urge you all to as well. M.E. is very professional, very fair and he states the facts! M.E. interviewed me at this event and I had my picture taken with him. I told him he was famous and well respected by Team Tancredo!!
I was at the event. Tom shrugged the heckler off, just as this article says. The Iowa media made Tom out to be outraged and confrontational which is completely false!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It takes a TANC to lead our country with morales!
www.teamtancredo.com
October 5, 2007
5:33 PM
DSS writes:
My Congressman, TT, needs to give some thought to the role of the 50 states. The individual states are often described as laboratories that allow policy ideas to be tried and if not beneficial in practice to be modified or revoked without the entire country being affected. TT apparently either doesn't know this or doesn't care. More fundamentally, the States CREATED the federal government by devising and ratifying the Constitution. The 10th amendment reserves to the states all powers not granted to the federal level by the Constitution. Historically, matters such as marriage, property, local criminal matters etc. have been within the sole jurisdiction of the states. TT is thinking as does Hill, in that, she and apparently TT, believes the federal jurisdiction should have the power to do anything. For example, for half a century, Nevada allowed rather easy divorce with minimal justification. Most states at the time required stringent grounds before granting a divorce. Thus, people went to Reno for 6 weeks and obtained a divorce. The same was true of gambling. Until the 1970s, Nevada was the only legal gambling jurisdiction in the United States. This difference among the states worked just fine. TT believes the federal government should take away the jurisdiction over marriages that the states have maintained for over 200 years. He does so to pander for votes from the conservative right. His proposal is bad government and bad public policy. TT on this issue is no different from abortion rights advocates who understood they could not prevail by convincing state legislatures to allow abortions. Their strategy thus turned to the federal Supreme Court to obtain what they could not obtain in the states. The decision, Roe v. Wade, is an example of the horrible results of bypassing traditional public policy-making mechanisms. If his cause is good, TT should be engaging in advocacy before individual state legislatures. TT is an example of a Republican who should be standing up for state rights instead acting as a Democrat and urging that power should flow to the federal government. An obvious example, of Potomac Fever, which strikes those who remain in Washington too long thereby forgetting where they came from. If this is what TT believes, he and Hill will get along just fine.