James Dobson is wrong on Fred Thompson

I'm not a supporter (yet...the jury's still out) of Fred Thompson. I haven't given him money and, while I think he's one of the more viable Republican candidates for President, I have reservations about him and still feel like I need to know more.

Having said that, James Dobson's criticism of him was uncalled for. An email Dobson recently wrote revealed his thoughts on the candidate:

"Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson wrote.

First, while I don't agree with McCain-Feingold, how is this a religious issue? It's purely political. If this is Dobson's personal view, I suppose it can't be too heavily criticized, as he's entitled to his personal view, but if this view is entwined with his duties with Focus on the Family, I think it's wrong.

Second, I don't know what Fred Thompson's view is, but I am also opposed to a constitutional amendment on the marriage issue. Why? Because I believe the federal government's influence in our lives should be kept to a minimum.

Since everyone must be "for" and "against" everything and since it's probably fair to give my opinion on the subject, I'm against gay marriage. I think it defies the definition of marriage.

I am also against federal encroachment on states' rights. I don't think the federal government's power over the states should be what it is. We are over-taxed, over-legislated, and over-governed by Washington enough as it is. The federal government's primary function should be to defend our nation. That's it. That's what was intended in the late 18th century. That's not what we have today.

Now, I doubt we'll ever quite get back to the federal government we once had. It has grown so big that it seems hard to turn back. But I still believe that's what's right. I still don't think the federal government should be dumping money into our schools and transportation systems and social programs. Leave those issues to the people who know how to best address them; leave those issues to the citizens of each respective state to deal with (and pay for) on their own.

So, it would be hypocritical for me to want the federal government out of the states' lives in these arenas but want them to be involved on the issue of marriage. That's why I stand where I stand.

The issue is confusing enough. The federal government's control has continually expanded ever since the Civil War, when the Union decided that the Southern states should not be allowed the "freedom" to decide whether or not slavery was legal. But shouldn't the federal government have stayed out of the states' business? In this case, I don't think so, because this was an issue of life and death. It's an issue of inhumanity. Abortion is also an issue of inhumanity that I think can be justly dealt with at the federal level.

Marriage, however, only affects the two who are entering the marriage. Oh, it affects the society around us, but then, that damage has already been done in our society. A marriage certificate really doesn't change much in that arena aside from a few legal aspects.

My point isn't that you should agree with my opinion on the federal government's involvement on the marriage issue. My point is that there is legitimate cause for disagreement on the role of the federal government, regardless of your opinion of the issue itself.

If Fred Thompson believed that gay marriage should be legalized, that would be one thing. But as far as I know, he doesn't. And as far as I'm concerned, Dobson should lay off.