Holy war: Richard Land knocks James Dobson for knocking Fred
posted at 10:19 pm on September 24, 2007 by Allahpundit
It’s going to be a fun primary.
“I’ve received phone calls and emails from Southern Baptists about Senator Thompson. They are all furious at Doctor Dobson. They just feel that first of all there was a mischaracterizing of his positions. Do I wish that he supported the marriage protection amendment? Of course I do. To say that he is for 50 different views of marriage in 50 different states is a gross mischaracterization of his position. Secondly, do I wish that he attended church every Sunday? As a Baptist pastor, of course I do. But does that make him a person of unbelief? That’s harsh and unwarranted.”…
“It’s (Thompson’s marriage amendment position) a problem. I think Southern Baptists have an ethical issue in which they need to deal. They may face a situation where they have a choice of three candidates. One they agree with 95% of the time, one they agree with 80 percent of the time and one they agree with 10% of the time. It may come to pass that they’re faced with a choice.”
Land’s right about Dobson misrepresenting Fred’s position on marriage. Fred supports a federal constitutional amendment to ban full faith and credit for gay marriage, not gay marriage itself. In other words, whereas a straight couple can run off to Vegas, get a Nevada marriage license, and have it honored as legal when they return to their home state, a limitation on full faith and credit would allow states to ignore out-of-state licenses for gay marriage. To equate that with Fred wanting 50 different definitions of the institution is absurd. He wants one definition, I’m sure; he’s simply unwilling to compromise on federalism by pushing for a constitutional amendment that would supersede state authority to regulate marriage by imposing a uniform national definition.
Which isn’t to say Land’s spinning pure gold here. Follow the link and check out his shmaltzy fetishization of small-town life America at the end. Smart populist politics but anathema to a New Yorker, needless to say.