Lori Falce: Where does Thompson really stand on gay marriage?

Politicians are notorious for the slippery ways in which they can avoid taking a firm position on some issues, freeing up just enough wiggle room to allow them to court votes on both sides.

Sure, there are the sometimes rigid positions that are taken on polarizing issues such as guns or abortion, but, when it comes to others, they tend to answer as if they are tiptoeing through a minefield. Sound strong enough on one front for this constituency but flexible enough to give hope to another. Maintain the appearance that a decision has yet to be made.

But this can only last so long after things come to a vote. Continuing to play both sides becomes like building a house out of cheese. It’s structurally unsound, no one can live with it, and, in the end, it’s going to stink.

That’s why I am getting the distinct odor of Limburger wafting from the recent actions of U.S. Rep. Glenn Thompson, R-Centre County.

Thompson is solidly middle of the Republican pack when it comes to the House of Representatives. The bills he introduces or sponsors tend to be on issues important to his area, including agriculture and career and technical education. He is proud to have worked with Democrats to get things done in those areas.

But he also is a political animal who was a county party leader before he picked up his Congressional seat. He sticks with the party line more often than not.

He stuck with it July 19 when he was one of the Republicans who voted against the Respect for Marriage Act. That is the measure introduced to codify same sex marriage into law after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in the Roe v. Wade appeal that suggested revisiting related rulings. The bill passed by a vote of 267 to 157, with 47 GOP votes supporting it.

Three days later, Thompson attended the wedding of his openly gay son. Thompson’s office confirmed the lawmaker and his wife happily welcomed their new son-in-law to the family.

When questioned about the seeming contradiction of these two acts just days apart, the office called the bill that would make his son’s marriage still legal in the face of a Supreme Court ruling decimating Obergefell v. Hodges “an election-year messaging stunt.”

So why vote against it? It’s unlikely to pass the Senate because, let’s be honest, little ever does.

If he believed it was important to vote against it — 29% of Americans are in that camp, according to a Gallup poll in June — why stand with his wife and say he supports his son’s marriage?

The easy answer is that he loves his family. I’ve known Thompson — G.T. to his friends — for years and can affirm he is a congenial guy with a firm handshake, and I’ve never seen him be anything but friendly.

Unfortunately, politics places elected officials in positions where they have to splinter themselves. While an accountant can easily draw a line between his life and his job, that is harder to do for someone who has run for office not so much on his ability to cast a vote but on the character and life choices behind the decision of which vote to cast.

Perhaps it isn’t fair to Thompson to ask him to be his son’s father when he casts that vote or to be that GOP politician when invited to the wedding. It is hard to cut one’s self into pieces like that.

But this back and forth is unfair to his son and son-in-law and Thompson’s constituents, who are left wondering what Thompson actually believes.