“In my opinion, when in doubt, err towards making government smaller and more local, never larger and more remote — whatever the issue.”
I agree with this statement re: most issues.
However, I am not “in doubt” that protecting life and marriage are more important than the concept of “federalism.”
“I agree with this statement re: most issues.
However, I am not “in doubt” that protecting life and marriage are more important than the concept of “federalism.””
I’d already understood you’re not in doubt. However, don’t weep if the same methods you espouse are turned against us. Since you have Michigan as part of your handle, you ought to be intimately familiar with the process by which the corruption of Detroit gets to dictate how the whole state goes.
I find it more likely, given the current climate, that some group may push through a national agenda enshrining buggery as a right than one protecting marriage. Will you defend the amendment as an instrument of social policy then? Probably not.
Well, you’re welcome to keep your opinion, and I’m glad for you that you have the optimism that the means you support, being more important than ‘federalism,’ will only be used for worthy causes like pro-life and pro-marriage efforts, but I don’t share your confidence in government or politicians.