I want to begin this article, which I write as an individual with all the free speech rights we enjoy as Americans, with an apology and a correction. In my column last week, I stated that Rep. Ron Paul was against the "Marriage Protection Act." He is not. What I meant to say was that he voted against the "Marriage Protection Amendment," which he did. I'm sorry for any confusion that may have resulted from this unintentional misstatement.

I have had people ask me to blast the leaders who have made outrageous endorsements. I have not. I have been asked to blast a prominent pro-life group that is making an endorsement today. I will not. What I will do is continue to differentiate where the candidates stand on the deal-breaker issues of the right to life and marriage.

We need unity – but what we don't need is compromise. The only thing this latest endorsement shows us is that our leaders are divided. The good news is that the grass roots are not. The two best indicators of where values voters stand are those who attended the Values Voter Presidential Debate and Summit where Gov. Mike Huckabee won both contests with more votes than all of the other candidates – combined. The 5-to-1 margin in both was clear – the leaders may be divided, but the values voters are not.

Our Declaration of Independence doesn't state that we are endowed by our Creator with the inalienable right to life unless states want to take it away. Yet, that is the position of Sen. Fred Thompson.

The Human Life Amendment that has been part of the GOP platform since 1980 has been the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement from the beginning. Calling abortion a "distracting issue," not only did Fred Thompson work to get rid of the GOP Platform in 1996, Thompson told Chris Russert on "Meet the Press" Nov. 4 that he opposes this basic goal:

MR. RUSSERT: Each state would make their own abortion laws.

MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. But, but, but to, to, to have an amendment compelling – going back even further than pre-Roe v. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go.

Thompson believes that if states want to kill children, that's perfectly fine with him.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me finish, because this is important. You're for allowing states to have pro-abortion rights, and you yourself, and I have 10 different statements from you, say that you would not ban abortion, it's a woman's right, and you would not ban it in the first trimester.

MR. THOMPSON: No, no. Well, you just said two different things here. You know, it's a complex issue concerning whether or not you're going to have a federal law, whether or not you're going to have a federal constitutional amendment, those kinds of things. Nobody's proposed a federal law on this.

Uh, there are three currently pending in this congressional session by two presidential candidates: Duncan Hunter's "Right to Life Act," H.R. 618 (which has 94 cosponsors), and Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life Act of 2007," H.R. 1094 and H.R. 2597.

"It's a complex issue?" Let me clarify the abortion issue as simply as I can: "Live baby good; dead baby bad." That's it. And any means we can find to protect these kids, whether it's a Supreme Court decision declaring the personhood of the unborn child, a Human Life Amendment or a federal law, trumps all "states rights" views to the contrary. Abortion, like slavery, isn't a geographical issue.

MR. RUSSERT: You would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise?

MR. THOMPSON: I do not think that you can have a, a, a law that would be effective and that would be the right thing to do, as I say, in terms of potentially – you can't have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that, which potentially would take young, young girls in extreme situations and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail to do that. I just don't think that that's the right thing to do. It cannot change the way I feel about it morally, but legally and practically, I've got to recognize that fact. It is a dilemma that I'm not totally comfortable with, but that's the best I can do in resolving it in my own mind.

Romney joins him in this (if you can trust his flip-flop on every major issue), while Giuliani doesn’t want to protect children at all. Oh, Thompson also cares more about states rights than he does about protecting marriage.

MR. RUSSERT: And also with gay marriage, according to the Associated Press: "Thompson favors a constitutional amendment that bars judges from legalizing gay marriage, but also leaves open the door for state legislatures to approve the practice." So if a state said, "We want to have gay marriages in our state," you would be OK with that?

MR. THOMPSON: Yes. This, this, this – the – marriage is between a man and a woman. Nobody ever thought that that was contested until recently, and we've had a couple judges in a couple states decide to turn all that on its head. So we've, we've had, again, a judge-created problem. I would support a constitutional amendment that addresses this judge-created problem. But at the end of – and, and say judges can't do that. But, at the end of the day, if a state legislature and a governor decide that that's what they want to do, yes, they should have, they, they should have the freedom to do what Fred Thompson thinks is a very bad idea.

He is joined in this "states rights" trump marriage by Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Paul.

We need a place of unity, not a place of compromise.

Our leaders are divided and on the wrong track. I call for all Christians to pray for them. Fear and finances have replaced faith and family values. A historic reminder: Gov. Mike Huckabee is exactly where Ronald Reagan was in 1979 in the polls and in finances. With everything up for grabs in this next election, NOW is the time for the uncompromising and unified grass roots to rise up and lead.