We must protect marriage and children.
At the heart of many of the problems facing our country stands an institution under siege. That institution is the American family. The best way to ensure a strong nation is to have strong families. To make this happen, I will join other like-minded men and women in Congress next year to create policies that encourage—not tear-down—our families. Any part of our government structure that has a penalty for marriage must be eliminated.
Forty years ago, if I asked you, “What is a marriage?” you would say, “It is a husband and wife committed to each other for life, of course.” But now every part of the family structure is under attack. Marriage should be defended as an institution between one man and one woman. Words like marriage, family, life and work ethic all have meaning and great significance in our culture.
In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act legally defined marriage and affirmed each state’s right to protect marriage. Families must continue to be honored and protected.
The most basic principle in our country is the right to life. We must have a culture that promotes life from conception to natural death. Every child should be protected, especially in the womb. Abortion causes the death of a human being and must be stopped as unjust and inhumane. Life begins when a cell is dividing and self-replicating. The difference between a baby in the womb and an adult is time.
States should have freedom from the federal mandates in education. Public schools should be accountable to parents and community for results. No parent should be trapped in a school that chooses not to make the hard choices necessary to educate his or her child. Private and home school families should be honored and protected.
We must have tougher laws, stiffer penalties, and aggressive prosecution of child pornographers and child predators.
I absolutely agree and am so glad you are running.
I absolutely disagree with this. While I support well your thoughts about the size and influence of the federal government; I cannot support this. Government has no right to dictate denominational beliefs or notions to others. God gave every man the free will to live as he chooses, and government, also, should respect this. “We hold these truths to be self evident…” — These words echo and embody the true meaning of our society, that each man, according to his own purpose, can carry out his life. Mandating a notional doctrine is inappropriate, and “defending marriage” is a federal government involved in something it shouldn’t.
v/r,
T.
Hey Tom,
Your view is interesting. Since the government seems to specialize in mandating ‘notional doctrines’ wouldn’t it be wise to carefully select and defend only those most cherished and culture sustaining institutions that form the fabric of our society?
In recent news the D.O.D. is making recommendations about school lunch programs because they claim our kids are too overweight to attend Basic Training. They say this is a matter of national defense. Like the strange potential we see in this example, there are any number of government mandates that restrict each man, according to his own purpose, from carrying out his life.
The government, at it’s worst, should not stand in the way of those things that promote a healthy and stable society and, at it’s best, should actively promote those things. Marriage, done right, strengthens a nation. Our government would be wise to recognize this.
I fully support your statements. So does science. For your boldness on these and several other issues, I will be enthusiastically supporting your campaign.
Tom has it right. Part of being a representative republic instead of a democracy is that the rights of minorities are protected by the rule of law. That should include the right to free association and to form relationships, even if they don’t fit the model of the dominant religious or cultural group.
Dave
In addition to the sentiments expressed by Dave Nalle and Tom M., I have another question: you argue for “tougher laws, stiffer penalties, and aggressive prosecution of child pornographers and child predators.” As the parent of a two-year-old, I certainly don’t want to defend such scum, but where do find the authority for the *Federal* government to get involved in such things? I’ve checked Article I, Section 8, and I don’t see anything about it.
You seem to talk a good game about the Constitution and limiting Federal power when it suits you, but you have no problem using the Feds to advance your personal agendas. I have no problem putting these sickos in a state prison for a very long time, but I just don’t see where the Federal government has the authority to get involved. Such scope creep is how we got where we are today.
As a follow-up to my previous comment: at http://jameslankford.com/category/states_rights/ you say, and I quote, “The federal government should handle issues that relate to multiple states, international agreements, border security, and national security; everything else should be left to the discretion of the individual states.”
How do you reconcile that statement with the comment I made above?
Anyone?