Republican attended gay son's wedding days after voting against same-sex marriage

These types of people are incapable of making logical connections like this. To them anyone who thinks the federal government shouldn't mandate everything they agree with is some type of real life Darth Vader seeking to deny all human rights to everyone except themselves.

It's really an amazing thing to see.

 

Ok. But the fact is, states rights will alienate all of us at some point. It's part of the deal.

Even if what you say ends up true, he isn't a hypocrite if he voted for that reason.

He may very well support gay marriage and understand that his view of states rights may not give him the outcome he prefers irt gay marriage, but he is a supporter of states rights nonetheless.

Its just a lazy approach to jot consider any nuance and jump straight to "hypocrite" attacks.

 

I know how politics work. That’s what makes him a hypocrite.

It’s not like he’s less of a hypocrite because he’s a politician and not a plumber, which you seem to think. “That’s not how plumbing works” said no one ever.

Being a politician doesn’t absolve him of hypocrisy. It’s what creates it.

 

You do understand i agree with almost everything you said here right?

That being said, this man is not a hypocrite for solely seeing it different than you or I (which I dont even think he does).

My marriage matters most between myself and God. The state part is purely business and has no connection with my church.

Let me ask this. If your son was the valedictorian and at his college graduation he planned to speak on something you fundamentally opposed, would you still attend?

What is a gay mans conservative/traditional marriage child became POTUS, would that man be a hypocrite for attending the inauguration?

The leaps being made in this thread over this families very personal choices are weird to me. Your personal choices can outweigh your professional ones in extreme times where love wins out.

 

I guess that’s the difference then. I think they’re pretty much all a bunch of kooks. Don’t take politicians so seriously. They literally prevaricate for an occupation.

 

“These types of people”……..

There’s a loooong LOGICAL leap between calling him a hypocrite and thinking “the federal government shouldn't mandate everything they agree with is some type of real life Darth Vader seeking to deny all human rights to everyone except themselves.”

Perhaps you’re the one with logic issues……

 

On that we agree.

 

He's equating a vote against more federal government power to a vote to deny parents the ability to support their children.

The federal government also doesn't have the power to regulate breastfeeding, would voting against federal breastfeeding protections be denying women (sorry, birth giving people) the ability to breastfeed? Similarly they can't mandate free housing. If someone were to vote against the feds providing everyone free housing would that be denying people the ability to have homes?

I'm not the one with hilariously slanted viewpoints.

 

We are addressing wholly different questions. You have framed the relevant question as to whether a father with deeply principled objections to his son's marriage should nonetheless attend the ceremony out of paternal love.

I do not think that is the question presented.

I think the relevant question is the moral legitimacy of exercising state power to deny the efficacy of an institution to others that you recognize as valid when you see it in your family.

We are both speculating as to Mr. Thompson's state of mind in making the decision to attend the ceremony and to "welcome" his son's new spouse into their family, because he has not shared it.

You believe that he holds his principles that same-sex marriage is somehow wrong for society but is electing to overlook his strongly held beliefs in an act of mercy to support his son. Possibly, but there's no direct evidence for that, at least in the original article. I didn't look for others to see if he expanded on his reasoning. I suspect he did not.

I am speculating that he is approving of his son's decision based upon his own observations of his son and his son's mate, but either feels constrained by politics or somehow separates those beliefs from the rights others should have.

But my post was simply to respond to your secondary point which I interpret as saying that there should be some respect given to many people's "deeply held" objections to same-sex marriage. David French, whom I have immense respect for, often makes the same observation. I still think it's wrong and unworthy of respect, for the reasons stated.

My reasoning is completely independent from Representative Thompson's decision to attend his son's marriage. It is an argument I made on the same page probably 20 years ago, if not more. I'm addressing the moral legitimacy of deeply held objections to the state recognizing same-sex marriage based upon religious objection.

 

Tilly, you keep missing half the story with analogies like this one:

If your son was the valedictorian and at his college graduation he planned to speak on something you fundamentally opposed, would you still attend?

A more accurate analogy would be:

If you were a congressman, and your son was valedictorian and planned to speak on something you fundamentally opposed, would you still attend… after you voted for legislation that banned valedictorians from speaking on issues you oppose?

 

Pretty sure I never said what he believes and I have said if anything he may have done this because he is a states rights advocate who may very well support gay marriage in general.

 

But he didnt vote against it. He voted against Congress making a federal decision that perhaps he believes is constitutionally left to the states.

 

You don't understand the meaning of the word "tolerance." "How dare you being intolerant towards the Southern conservatives who oppose integration! Y'all clearly don't believe in tolerance!"

 

Still not a hypocrite. Still supporting his child. Taking part in his sons life overrides the political side every time to me.

Also a nuance not yet mentioned is the possibility for someone to support their son while not supporting his action. No idea of thats the case, but the two positions can coexist.

Playing the long game to maintain a healthy relationship with a son you disagree with is certainly good parenting in my book.

 

When breastfeeding and free housing are considered to be protected rights under the 14th amendment, we can have that conversation (which will be never).

Until then, marriage is different, not “hilariously slanted”.

 

I haven't seen any recent comments from him and was wondering about his thoughts, too. I did see an old post from his FB where he said he was disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision, saying that Congress needed to provide oversight to assure that the decision did not infringe upon peoples' religious liberties.

 

Multiple people have stated that he somehow voted to deny others the joy of same-sex weddings. However, same-sex marriage is legal today, so voting no on anything cannot deny people same-sex marriage. That’s a logical impossibility.

In order to vote to deny people the joy of same-sex weddings, there would have to be a resolution banning same-sex marriages and then he would have to vote yes. Voting no on anything cannot deny what already exists.

As far as the analogies proposed here go, it seems most like a Gator father who roots against the Seminoles, and yet still attends his son’s graduation from FSU. The son did not choose the path the father would prefer, but the father chooses to support the son in his joyful occasion.

 

The right of all people to marry someone of the opposite sex is protected in all states. Nobody is being denied this right, it's equally protected under the law of every state. I also don't know of any where it's illegal for gays to marry. The 14th amendment doesn't mean the federal government has to step in to say two dudes can marry each other. By your logic the feds should set the age of consent to 16 because it's 16 in Alabama so all citizens should have equal protection under the laws.

What protection is being denied? What right is being taken away or curtailed?

 

And abortion was legal in all states until is wasn’t…

 

I can’t believe how many times you’re saying “states rights” in this thread. When was the last time that term wasn’t used as a code word for racism and bigotry? Seriously, I’m asking. Can you think of a time, because it seems like every time someone starts talking about “states rights” it’s always somehow related to oppressing some group the majority doesn’t like.

Here, I’ll let Nixon and Reagan adviser Lee Atwater explain it you…

“Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "N-word, n-word, n-word". By 1968, you can't say "n-word"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff.

New century, different bogey man to oppress with states rights…