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 sending his/her child to a school that chooses not to make the hard choices necessary to educate that child. Private and homeschool 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?
Now im only 17 and not an expert but my take on that, is that the federal governments law whether we like it or not has precedent over state law. Thats the constitution and thats how it has always been since the articles of confederation were repealed all those years ago by the framers. He is running for a seat in congress,therefore he is going to be a part of that federal government and wishes to use that power entrusted to him by the people of Oklahoma to do good. He wants to limit the power it has yes but that is a lifetime ambition which will not change in one year. Therefore he wants to do the best he can of protecting our freedoms while it is as big as it is this year and in his term. Now i know there is no perfect solution and if he wants to do any good in the immediate future he is going to have to take it bit by bit, piece by piece, to see that goal of a reduced federal government reached. Your thoughts?
^ Very well said Collin. You are a smart young man. I completely agree with everything James has stated above.
Marriage has always been, and should continue to be, between a man and a woman. Period! When people say their wedding vows, is God not mentioned there within? That being the case, did God intend on one man and one woman? Wedding vows are for LIFE, and the only cause for divorce should be unfaithfulness and abuse.
Abortions are homicide, regardless of how young the child may be. When and where there’s a heartbeat, there is a life. It’s not negotiable. We don’t kill each and every person that slips into a coma. So why would somebody abort an innocent child when there are so many couples out there that can’t have kids and are willing to adopt?
Collin,
you need to go back to Civics class (is that even still taught)? Yes, Federal law is superior to state law (US Constitution, Article VI, supremacy clause). However, that does *not* mean that the Feds have the authority to pass laws on any and all subjects. The Feds have Constitutional authority to pass laws on subjects listed in Article I, Section 8.
As to shrinking the government: yes, I understand that it won’t be done in one year; that said, Mr. Lankford is proposing to actively *increase* the size of the Federal government, and to do so by legislating on matters not authorized to the Feds in Article I, Section 8.
If you’d like to review the text of the Constitution, you’ll find a copy at http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html. I believe you’ll find it instructive.
Abortion is murder. If a woman is killed while pregnant the courts can charge the offender with two counts of murder or manslaughter. Although if a woman walks into a abortion clinic and murder’s her unborn child she is called responsible. WAKE UP! Everybody that is for abortion has a say because their Mother didn’t have an abortion. The reason why people defend abortion is because we are a nation of nonresponsibility takers. You have sex, get pregnant but don’t want to accept the responsibility of raising a child, then don’t have sex. What they need to do is if a woman has an abortion then medical fix it where she can no longer have a child. Wouldn’t that be easier than running back to the abortion clinic everytime she gets pregnant. Who are you or I to decide if an unborn life is to live. Keep thinking that judgement day isn’t coming.