Fred Thompson in his latest blog gets it right in his childing of arrogant judges in California, but then goes awry with his criticism of a marriage Amendment, writing:

Nationally, as a result of this case, there will undoubtedly be renewed calls for a federal constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage. Conservatives should resist the temptation to support such a remedy. States must solve this problem for themselves. They cannot and should not be saved from themselves or absolved of the responsibility that they have, a responsibility protected against federal intrusion by the Tenth Amendment.

In the first place, playing the game of judicial activists, and leaping to the federal-constitutional-amendment remedy every time judges misread the constitution and change the law, is a fool’s errand. Passing two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures has proven to be an impossible hurdle for the marriage amendment and many other proposed constitutional amendments, even when Republicans controlled Congress.

Thompson gets it right on the practicality. Wrong on principle. A marriage Amendment is hard to pass, that’s true. However, what those proposing a marriage are suggesting is not on the scale of judicial activism, because what’s being proposed is not riding roughshod over existing processes for changing the Constitution, but following them. While you may not agree with the FMA tact, to equate it with judicial activism is to equate legitimate actions to amend the constitution with illegitimate actions to undermine it.

More fundamentally, the issue presented is not whether conservatives will get their way on the issue of same-sex marriage. The issue is, in our system of government, determining the appropriate place for this issue to be decided. For over 200 years marriage and related issues have been the province of state, not federal law.

Here again is the problem with Fred Thomspon on the social issues of our time. It was the weakness Alan Keyes pointed to quite rightly in his Reno speech when he compared Thompson’s position on abortion to that of Stephen Douglas on slavery. Douglas famously cared that he cared not whether slavery was legal or illegal, as long as states decided it. Thompson’s position here is that he cares not whether gay marriage is legal or illegal as long as the states decide it.

According to Thompson, as long as its the legislature that takes a sledgehammer to the foundation of Western Civilization, it’s okay.

Now, I know many folks who are pro-life and pro-family who feel these issues should be decided at the state level. But Thompson doesn’t come off as against gay marriage, but indifferent to it in his federalism. This is part of what gave Thompson problems with religious conservatives in 2008 and should be a lesson to federalists. If Religious Conservatives feel you’re indifferent to their cause, you will not gain their support.