Dems hope for Cruz, fear Bush

[MACVSOG68]

Remember Clinton is trying to run as the first woman President..

Yes, but she still has far more baggage than does Bush.  And the left doesn't really like her, but unlike some on our side of the aisle who demand purity on the issues, have no problem with supporting Clinton if she's the nominee.  As the left would say, "any Democrat is better than any Republican".

[Luis Gonzalez]

There are several variations of conservatism, but generally speaking conservatism doesn't oppose change.  Rather it demands a slow, thoughtful approach.  I know that GOP moderates are painted as either liberal or at best, not conservative.  Again though, moderation is the epitome of conservatism.

And there you have it, conservatives wish to control or engineer change to suit their ideals and/or control the way societal changes happen.

Societal changes happen, they're not engineered. They are cheered and promoted, but they happen at their own pace. Most here will argue that the avalanching support for same-sex marriage in the nation and growing acceptance of homosexuality as well as the vocal opposition to those who oppose both is engineered, but I don't think that's the case. I think that's society trying to send out the message that we, as a society, really want to move on and call this argument settled. The scales have tipped and it's time to end this argument, which is what I believe is exactly what the SCOTUS is about to do.

But wasn't Prop 8 a popular and certainly constitutional way to push back at the perception of government's interference with society?  And it passed in ultra-liberal California.

It's a hard argument to make that something that was found to be unconstitutional by the Courts was in fact Constitutional. Prop 8 was the people demanding that the government interfere with the natural flow of societal change and it was found to be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Marriage, in the eyes of the States, is a secular contract and the Courts apparently agreed that the voters can't vote away the rights of people to be protected under that Constitutional Clause simply because of a general disapproval or animus toward a group of individuals. In fact, no amount of votes can remove one single individual's constitutionally-protected rights.

Prop 8 was what the framers described as "excesses of Democracy" during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, that thing which could lead to unlimited tyranny by the majority. Any law can pass, no matter how unconstitutional, so long as enough people vote for it. Jefferson agreed, reminding everyone that "elective despotism was not the government we fought for."

Conservatism is about preserving the Constitution, though many who call themselves constitutional conservatives decry the efforts at preserving the 14th Amendment in spite of rather plain language.  Perhaps the biggest mistake many of them make is assuming the intentions of the Founding Fathers.  They were simply not in agreement on much, and the Constitution arose out of bitter disputes, but at least a willingness to compromise.  The entire document was one compromise after another, and still, many at the time had very different ideas as to both implications and meanings. 

The XIV Amendment is a topic for a much wider discussion.

But aren't liberals just as guilty?  They live by preaching fear.  It would be nice if social change would take place in the social arena without government making those changes for us.  If the owner of a business has a religious objection to either abortion or gay marriage, public officials threaten them with sanctions.  Chick fil-A and Hobby Lobby were ridiculed by liberal mayors and told their businesses were not welcome in their cities.  Some fear is legitimate.

It is however a far improvement from being fed to the lions, don't you think?

By the same token, religious leaders are standing at the pulpit basically saying that homosexuals are pedophiles, abominations, and unnatural, so there are no clean hands here. I will say that we should really refrain with using that broad brush you spoke about earlier and define all liberals and homosexuals by the actions of a portion of them. That's as wrong as liberals defining all Christians by the actions of groups like The Westboro Baptists and their ilk.

I think that the issue of bakeries etc will be eventually settled as it works its way through the Courts. I am encouraged by the Court decisions on Chik fil-A and Hobby Lobby because they may give us a clear insight into where this Court stands.

I could not agree more with you.  And unfortunately our House is very divided at present.

[Fishrrman]

Luis wrote above:
[[ A house divided cannot stand...]]

A "diverse" house (ethnically and racially diverse) will ALWAYS be a "divided" house.

What does that portend for the future?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Luis wrote above:
[[ A house divided cannot stand...]]

A "diverse" house (ethnically and racially diverse) will ALWAYS be a "divided" house.

What does that portend for the future?

We've always been a diverse house. There isn't a time in the history of this nation when that hasn't been the case, and there hasn't been a time when someone has predicted die consequences for the Republic because of that.

"I am perfectly of your mind, that measures of great Temper are necessary with the Germans: and am not without Apprehensions, that thro’ their indiscretion or Ours, or both, great disorders and inconveniences may one day arise among us; Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation, and as Ignorance is often attended with Credulity when Knavery would mislead it, and with Suspicion when Honesty would set it right; and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, ’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain. Their own Clergy have very little influence over the people; who seem to take an uncommon pleasure in abusing and discharging the Minister on every trivial occasion. Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it; and as Kolben says of the young Hottentots, that they are not esteemed men till they have shewn their manhood by beating their mothers, so these seem to think themselves not free, till they can feel their liberty in abusing and insulting their Teachers. Thus they are under no restraint of Ecclesiastical Government; They behave, however, submissively enough at present to the Civil Government which I wish they may continue to do: For I remember when they modestly declined intermeddling in our Elections, but now they come in droves, and carry all before them, except in one or two Counties; Few of their children in the Country learn English; they import many Books from Germany; and of the six printing houses in the Province, two are entirely German, two half German half English, and but two entirely English; They have one German News-paper, and one half German. Advertisements intended to be general are now printed in Dutch and English; the Signs in our Streets have inscriptions in both languages, and in some places only German: They begin of late to make all their Bonds and other legal Writings in their own Language, which (though I think it ought not to be) are allowed good in our Courts, where the German Business so encreases that there is continual need of Interpreters; and I suppose in a few years they will be also necessary in the Assembly, to tell one half of our Legislators what the other half say; In short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious." - Benjamin Franklin, letter to Peter Collinson

[MACVSOG68]

And there you have it, conservatives wish to control or engineer change to suit their ideals and/or control the way societal changes happen.

Societal changes happen, they're not engineered. They are cheered and promoted, but they happen at their own pace. Most here will argue that the avalanching support for same-sex marriage in the nation and growing acceptance of homosexuality as well as the vocal opposition to those who oppose both is engineered, but I don't think that's the case. I think that's society trying to send out the message that we, as a society, really want to move on and call this argument settled. The scales have tipped and it's time to end this argument, which is what I believe is exactly what the SCOTUS is about to do.

Many changes are very much engineered. Obamacare was a poorly thought out hodgepodge which was pushed into legislation not only too quickly but without half the Congress permitted to participate.  Colorado marijuana law, again not well thought out, has spawned seller's remorse all the way to the statehouse.  Efforts to equalize the military with women in areas they had never served have created numerous problems.  The whole LGBT push even in elementary schools is yet another absolutely absurd, poorly thought out effort to equalize everyone...even in the bathrooms.

Without conservatism to slow down the escalation of "change" in the Nation, I can't imagine where we would be today.  OTOH I only have to look at the leftist agenda to see.

That particular societal change was forced by the courts.  Some such changes are good; some not so good.  But society followed the forced gay marriage laws, and it was obvious that many states either didn't permit it or had alternatives.   

It's a hard argument to make that something that was found to be unconstitutional by the Courts was in fact Constitutional. Prop 8 was the people demanding that the government interfere with the natural flow of societal change and it was found to be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Marriage, in the eyes of the States, is a secular contract and the Courts apparently agreed that the voters can't vote away the rights of people to be protected under that Constitutional Clause simply because of a general disapproval or animus toward a group of individuals. In fact, no amount of votes can remove one single individual's constitutionally-protected rights.

Prop 8 was what the framers described as "excesses of Democracy" during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, that thing which could lead to unlimited tyranny by the majority. Any law can pass, no matter how unconstitutional, so long as enough people vote for it. Jefferson agreed, reminding everyone that "elective despotism was not the government we fought for."

A few points.  First, the proposition was to amend the state constitution to better define marriage, and had nothing to do with the federal court decision to come later.  Second, it was passed by a margin of more than a million votes in arguably one of the most liberal states in the Union.  Proposition 13 saved a lot of homeowners from financial devastation during a time of quickly growing home values.  As for "excess democracy", most state constitutions provide for just such a means to amend their constitutions.  We don't have that on the federal level because we have Article V which provides essentially the same thing albeit on a state level in a republican form of government.

By the same token, religious leaders are standing at the pulpit basically saying that homosexuals are pedophiles, abominations, and unnatural, so there are no clean hands here. I will say that we should really refrain with using that broad brush you spoke about earlier and define all liberals and homosexuals by the actions of a portion of them. That's as wrong as liberals defining all Christians by the actions of groups like The Westboro Baptists and their ilk.

I think that the issue of bakeries etc will be eventually settled as it works its way through the Courts. I am encouraged by the Court decisions on Chik fil-A and Hobby Lobby because they may give us a clear insight into where this Court stands.

Couldn't agree more.  Nor should we be making laws to prevent such speech, or worse to make laws based on such speech.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Many changes are very much engineered. Obamacare was a poorly thought out hodgepodge which was pushed into legislation not only too quickly but without half the Congress permitted to participate.  Colorado marijuana law, again not well thought out, has spawned seller's remorse all the way to the statehouse.  Efforts to equalize the military with women in areas they had never served have created numerous problems.  The whole LGBT push even in elementary schools is yet another absolutely absurd, poorly thought out effort to equalize everyone...even in the bathrooms.

Without conservatism to slow down the escalation of "change" in the Nation, I can't imagine where we would be today.  OTOH I only have to look at the leftist agenda to see.

That particular societal change was forced by the courts.  Some such changes are good; some not so good.  But society followed the forced gay marriage laws, and it was obvious that many states either didn't permit it or had alternatives.   

A few points.  First, the proposition was to amend the state constitution to better define marriage, and had nothing to do with the federal court decision to come later.  Second, it was passed by a margin of more than a million votes in arguably one of the most liberal states in the Union.  Proposition 13 saved a lot of homeowners from financial devastation during a time of quickly growing home values.  As for "excess democracy", most state constitutions provide for just such a means to amend their constitutions.  We don't have that on the federal level because we have Article V which provides essentially the same thing albeit on a state level in a republican form of government.

Couldn't agree more.  Nor should we be making laws to prevent such speech, or worse to make laws based on such speech.

Obamacare wasn't a societal change, that's bad legislation. Societal changes are paradigm shifts followed by supporting legislation. Support for marijuana decriminalization has been growing steadily in the U.S. for w past two decades, where now a slight majority supports it. The majority in Colorado is greater than in the U.S. Colorado decriminalization was organic in nature. I support laws that favor more freedom over ones that restrict freedom. That "seller's remorse" (all anecdotal evidence aside) comes from people who opposed decriminalization to begin with. If Coloradoans really come to regret the laws, the move to reverse the law will be equally as organic. Colorado decrimalization of laws was the polar opposite of Prop 8.

The bathroom thing is stupidity and overacting that's not widespread. It will die down. Don't allow yourself to be driven like cattle by D who wish you to think the forest ugly by directing your attention the presence of a few scrub pines

The acceptance of homosexuality was not driven by the Courts. As much as the idea that we are hapless, brainless sheep fits the Social conservative narrative, we are not. That's not to say that there aren't any hapless, brainless sheep, but we can't continue to both celebrate the American Spirit and call us a bunch of idiots driven around by our noses. The acceptance of homosexual behavior has been growing for decades, again an organic change. If anything, the Courts has followed society rather than the other way around as you have suggested.

This quote is indicative of what I see being wrong with Social Conservatism in general:

Without conservatism to slow down the escalation of "change" in the Nation, I can't imagine where we would be today.

You are only able to imagine the possibility of things being worse "without conservatism" being there to "slow down" organic changes, but the fact is that being at a better place than where we are today is an equally real possibility. In fact, I would say that, more than any other reason, the conservatism/liberalism power struggle is what has driven our nation to the sad state where it finds itself today.

Finally, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land whatever law, poll initiative or proposition may be enacted, if challenged in Federal Courts, the Constitution will prevail. There's a vast sea of difference between Prop 8 and Prop 13, Prop 13 didn't seek to diminish the rights and privileges of any segment of the population, it was financial in nature. Again, while States have the power to enact laws, those laws cannot be conflictive with the Supreme Law of the land or diminish the rights and privileges of all the people.

[MACVSOG68]

Obamacare wasn't a societal change, that's bad legislation.

And the purpose of conservatism in the political arena is to slow down such bad legislation.  Democrats would not permit a single amendment designed to mitigate some of the impacts.

Societal changes are paradigm shifts followed by supporting legislation. Support for marijuana decriminalization has been growing steadily in the U.S. for w past two decades, where now a slight majority supports it. The majority in Colorado is greater than in the U.S. Colorado decriminalization was organic in nature. I support laws that favor more freedom over ones that restrict freedom. That "seller's remorse" (all anecdotal evidence aside) comes from people who opposed decriminalization to begin with. If Coloradoans really come to regret the laws, the move to reverse the law will be equally as organic. Colorado decrimalization of laws was the polar opposite of Prop 8.

Colorado's "sellers' remorse" comes from the governor who signed it into law.  It was signed into law, not after careful consideration of the potential problems, but in spite of those problems:

"He also went on to warn other states, who are considering following in Colorado’s wake, that doing so may be too hastily, as he believes more time is required to sort through the data and realize any possible long-term consequences"

The bathroom thing is stupidity and overacting that's not widespread. It will die down. Don't allow yourself to be driven like cattle by D who wish you to think the forest ugly by directing your attention the presence of a few scrub pines

How many examples of hasty liberal actions are necessary to make a point.  The point simply is that most liberal initiatives put into place are hastily done with little concern for the problems in the future.  And the bathroom wasn't my only example.

The acceptance of homosexuality was not driven by the Courts. As much as the idea that we are hapless, brainless sheep fits the Social conservative narrative, we are not. That's not to say that there aren't any hapless, brainless sheep, but we can't continue to both celebrate the American Spirit and call us a bunch of idiots driven around by our noses. The acceptance of homosexual behavior has been growing for decades, again an organic change. If anything, the Courts has followed society rather than the other way around as you have suggested.

I'm not sure how the courts followed society in the case of gay marriage, since they have spent their efforts finding state after state illegally withholding gay marriage, when the populace of those states were against redefining marriage.  That doesn't sound like the courts following society to me.  Even Obama, hardly a conservative, was against gay marriage until his reelection campaign in 2012.  Now to even suggest one is against gay marriage is close to a hate crime. 

This quote is indicative of what I see being wrong with Social Conservatism in general:

Without conservatism to slow down the escalation of "change" in the Nation, I can't imagine where we would be today.

Well I'm hardly a social conservative with respect to homosexuals, abortion, or other such issues, and yes I believe that.  Many liberals and even moderates believe that conservatism centers around social issues, which is their mistake.

You are only able to imagine the possibility of things being worse "without conservatism" being there to "slow down" organic changes, but the fact is that being at a better place than where we are today is an equally real possibility. In fact, I would say that, more than any other reason, the conservatism/liberalism power struggle is what has driven our nation to the sad state where it finds itself today.

Perhaps, but I can look at places like Venezuela, Cuba, China before it discovered capitalism, the Soviet Union, North Korea, all which looked at communism as the solution to poverty and see us moving in that direction.  And hopefully no one will confuse communism with conservatism. Are efforts to slow down Hollywood's attempts to push everything from violence to drugs to sex bad?  Again, conservatism isn't about stopping change, but slowing it down to envision the problems that change will bring.  That's not a bad thing!

Finally, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land whatever law, poll initiative or proposition may be enacted, if challenged in Federal Courts, the Constitution will prevail. There's a vast sea of difference between Prop 8 and Prop 13, Prop 13 didn't seek to diminish the rights and privileges of any segment of the population, it was financial in nature. Again, while States have the power to enact laws, those laws cannot be conflictive with the Supreme Law of the land or diminish the rights and privileges of all the people.

Agreed with respect to the Constitution being the supreme law of the Land.  But Prop 8 didn't seek to diminish the rights of anyone, but simply sought to define the term "marriage".  Liberals will still decry the enactment of Prop 13 as taking away monies from the poor.  With respect to the gay marriage issue, prior to the recent court decisions, the only two defining federal court decisions involving gay marriage (I'm aware of) were a USSC decision refusing to take it on as "not involving a federal issue", and an 8th Circuit decision upholding a state ban on gay marriage.

That decision opened up the discussion of a state's legitimate concern for "discriminating".  Discrimination by a government is not illegal per se, but when a case is brought, that governing body must show a compelling state interest.  BTW, I'm a proponent the 14th Amendment, which really is the underpinning of the argument here.

[Luis Gonzalez]

And the purpose of conservatism in the political arena is to slow down such bad legislation.  Democrats would not permit a single amendment designed to mitigate some of the impacts.[/b]

We're discussing conservatism as it applies to societal changes. Obamacare does no fit that bill, so let's move away from it.

Colorado's "sellers' remorse" comes from the governor who signed it into law.  It was signed into law, not after careful consideration of the potential problems, but in spite of those problems:

"He also went on to warn other states, who are considering following in Colorado’s wake, that doing so may be too hastily, as he believes more time is required to sort through the data and realize any possible long-term consequences"

How many examples of hasty liberal actions are necessary to make a point.  The point simply is that most liberal initiatives put into place are hastily done with little concern for the problems in the future.  And the bathroom wasn't my only example.

It was conservative action that gave us the Lawrence decision which made all anti-homosexual laws invalid. Texas changed their statute which had made sodomy illegal and narrowed the scope of the law to make only homosexual sodomy illegal. They clearly targeted a class of citizens with unexpected results. 

I'm not sure how the courts followed society in the case of gay marriage, since they have spent their efforts finding state after state illegally withholding gay marriage, when the populace of those states were against redefining marriage.  That doesn't sound like the courts following society to me.  Even Obama, hardly a conservative, was against gay marriage until his reelection campaign in 2012.  Now to even suggest one is against gay marriage is close to a hate crime. 

Well I'm hardly a social conservative with respect to homosexuals, abortion, or other such issues, and yes I believe that.  Many liberals and even moderates believe that conservatism centers around social issues, which is their mistake.

Acceptance of homosexuality has been growing steadily in the country for decades. This has not been that country where Rock Hudson had to hide his sexuality for many, many years. Here's a fabricated timeline preceding all Court cases related to homosexuality:

1924... first known Gay Rights organization in the US
1951... first national gay rights association in the US
1962... Illinois decriminalizes same-sex sodomy between consenting adults
1973... The American Psychiatric Association removes homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders.
1978... Harvey Milk is elected
1982... Wisconsin becomes the first state to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
1996... Romer v. Evans. First SCOTUS case to strike down a law denying homosexuals equal protection under the law
2003... Lawrence v. Texas

There was a lot of history in the general growth of acceptance of homosexuality in the US (@50 years' worth) before the Courts became involved.

Perhaps, but I can look at places like Venezuela, Cuba, China before it discovered capitalism, the Soviet Union, North Korea, all which looked at communism as the solution to poverty and see us moving in that direction.  And hopefully no one will confuse communism with conservatism. Are efforts to slow down Hollywood's attempts to push everything from violence to drugs to sex bad?  Again, conservatism isn't about stopping change, but slowing it down to envision the problems that change will bring.  That's not a bad thing!

Again, you only see negative possibilities. I look to what I believe to be the one of most, if not the most, act of unbridled liberalism in the history of man and its outcome when I consider the possibilities of man being allowed to develop without the binding chains of traditionalism weighing him down.

I am of course talking about The American Revolution.

That turned out OK.

Agreed with respect to the Constitution being the supreme law of the Land.  But Prop 8 didn't seek to diminish the rights of anyone, but simply sought to define the term "marriage".  Liberals will still decry the enactment of Prop 13 as taking away monies from the poor.  With respect to the gay marriage issue, prior to the recent court decisions, the only two defining federal court decisions involving gay marriage (I'm aware of) were a USSC decision refusing to take it on as "not involving a federal issue", and an 8th Circuit decision upholding a state ban on gay marriage.

That decision opened up the discussion of a state's legitimate concern for "discriminating".  Discrimination by a government is not illegal per se, but when a case is brought, that governing body must show a compelling state interest.  BTW, I'm a proponent the 14th Amendment, which really is the underpinning of the argument here.

Government cannot define marriage, because marriage is the end result of a religious ceremony or sacrament, if you're Catholic. Prop 8 opted to define a civil union in a way that it denied issuance of a marriage license to a group of individuals based on the majority's distaste for these individuals engaging in a completely legal activity, and a marriage license is a civil license issued by the State. The very idea that people are willing to give government the power to define marriage by popular vote is frightening. Those voting to do that are giving absolutely no consideration to the long-term consequences of that transfer of power, and they will scream bloody murder when the government uses that power given to them, to define marriage in a manner completely opposite to what they tried doing with Prop 8.

Yet, it was Prop 8 that gave the government the power to define marriage, just as the Federal DoMA gave the Federal government the power to define marriage.

That was also struck down BTW.

[MACVSOG68]

We're discussing conservatism as it applies to societal changes. Obamacare does no fit that bill, so let's move away from it.

Not really.  See your post 52 responding to my 45.  We were discussing conservatism from a political point of view.  That it morphed into the gay marriage issue doesn't narrow your view that the purpose of conservatism is to stop progress.  My point is still that one of the main objectives of conservatism is to slow down, not necessarily stop legislation that frequently may not consider the unforeseen dilemmas,  and to point out that all cultural change isn't necessarily in the best interests of the Nation.

I understand that gay marriage is here to stay, but my point was that the very fast movement of it was the result mainly of federal district courts.

It was conservative action that gave us the Lawrence decision which made all anti-homosexual laws invalid. Texas changed their statute which had made sodomy illegal and narrowed the scope of the law to make only homosexual sodomy illegal. They clearly targeted a class of citizens with unexpected results.

I don't have an issue with the Lawrence decision.  Remember religious and cultural norms in the US did not give much leeway to gays and their activities.  I can list other good decisions that changed the culture too such as the Loving decision and the Griswold decision.  Privacy is a very important right.  The 8th Circuit decision did not accept that sexual orientation was a suspect classification, ergo a de facto case of discrimination, and thus was not the same issue as laws that banned interracial marriages.

 
There was a lot of history in the general growth of acceptance of homosexuality in the US (@50 years' worth) before the Courts became involved.

I can only refer back to the Gallup poll you posted earlier.  It wasn't until about 3 years ago that a majority accepted gay marriage.  It coincided with several court cases, and the sudden epiphany by Obama and liberal leaders who were by then much farther to the left.

But it is acceptable to a majority today, by almost any poll.  And most conservatives have put the issue behind us, knowing there are far more important problems.  The Religious Right, is still not happy with it, but I think even they know we are not going back...on many of the social issues.

But it is funny that liberals in general are social activists, while relatively few conservatives are.  Yet conservatives get hammered constantly.  I'm back to what started this, my concern over the broad brush attack on conservatives.

 

Again, you only see negative possibilities. I look to what I believe to be the one of most, if not the most, act of unbridled liberalism in the history of man and its outcome when I consider the possibilities of man being allowed to develop without the binding chains of traditionalism weighing him down.

I am of course talking about The American Revolution.

That turned out OK.

It did turn out well, after a second war 30 years later.  But it's interesting to me that while we broke the political chain with Britain, we kept most of the religious, cultural, and legal traditions.  It's also interesting that the father of conservatism, Edmund Burke believed most vehemently in tradition as the binding to social order.  He wrote extensively about how out-of-control liberalism led to the French Revolution which he despised.  Yet at the same time he approved of the American Revolution. 

Government cannot define marriage, because marriage is the end result of a religious ceremony or sacrament, if you're Catholic. Prop 8 opted to define a civil union in a way that it denied issuance of a marriage license to a group of individuals based on the majority's distaste for these individuals engaging in a completely legal activity, and a marriage license is a civil license issued by the State. The very idea that people are willing to give government the power to define marriage by popular vote is frightening. Those voting to do that are giving absolutely no consideration to the long-term consequences of that transfer of power, and they will scream bloody murder when the government uses that power given to them, to define marriage in a manner completely opposite to what they tried doing with Prop 8.

Yet, it was Prop 8 that gave the government the power to define marriage, just as the Federal DoMA gave the Federal government the power to define marriage.

That was also struck down BTW.

Governments everywhere have always had a part in defining marriage.  Utah became a state only after agreement to give up polygamy.  Every state has laws defining both the meaning and requirements for marriage.  It should not be surprising then that the proponents of Prop 8 were disappointed that their state chose to change that definition, in spite of an earlier constitutional amendment by the people defining marriage.  As I said earlier, every state has a constitutional amendment process that includes the people.  In any case, it was the federal court that struck it down.

[truth_seeker]

Back to:  "Dems hope for Cruz, fear Bush"

Or in effect, dems hope the GOP will nominate a candidate that pleases their religious wing, but is out of step with the nation and will therefore lose.

So far Rand Paul and Jeb Bush seem to be seeking to gain wider appeal.

The nation as a whole wants pot legalized, and wants people to be able to form pairings and associations as they please, which are expansions of personal freedom, and stepping away from religious incursion into civil law.

I remember after the 2012 loss, when Republicans were admitting they needed to do some serious soul searching, since they appeared to be going away from the demographics and social opinions.

For now that soul searching is set aside, while most seek to appeal to whatever the feel is the "base."

Just remember that now is primary season, when most "run to the right" but then for the general the Republican will "run to the center."

[Luis Gonzalez]

Not really.  See your post 52 responding to my 45.  We were discussing conservatism from a political point of view.  That it morphed into the gay marriage issue doesn't narrow your view that the purpose of conservatism is to stop progress.  My point is still that one of the main objectives of conservatism is to slow down, not necessarily stop legislation that frequently may not consider the unforeseen dilemmas,  and to point out that all cultural change isn't necessarily in the best interests of the Nation.

If you wish to continue injecting Obamacare into a discussion about societal changes and government, go right ahead. I'm not responding any further to what I see as being a red herring being thrown into the discussion. 

I understand that gay marriage is here to stay, but my point was that the very fast movement of it was the result mainly of federal district courts.

I posted a timeline that disproves that. Apparently you need someone to lay blame on, and the Courts are your boogeyman. Go right head, that's your prerogative, but I'm also out of that one.

I don't have an issue with the Lawrence decision.  Remember religious and cultural norms in the US did not give much leeway to gays and their activities.  I can list other good decisions that changed the culture too such as the Loving decision and the Griswold decision.  Privacy is a very important right.  The 8th Circuit decision did not accept that sexual orientation was a suspect classification, ergo a de facto case of discrimination, and thus was not the same issue as laws that banned interracial marriages.

I can only refer back to the Gallup poll you posted earlier.  It wasn't until about 3 years ago that a majority accepted gay marriage.  It coincided with several court cases, and the sudden epiphany by Obama and liberal leaders who were by then much farther to the left.

But it is acceptable to a majority today, by almost any poll.  And most conservatives have put the issue behind us, knowing there are far more important problems.  The Religious Right, is still not happy with it, but I think even they know we are not going back...on many of the social issues.

The rise in acceptance long preceded the majority approval. You apparently need to assign blame on the Courts for the acceptance rising above the 50% mark, and I see a pattern that tells me that we would have arrived there irrespective of the Court's decisions. In reference to Loving, over 70% of Americans at the time opposed legalizing interracial marriage , but apparently and in retrospect, that wasn't activism, that was a good call by the Court. Knowing that, I expect the same historical view of the upcoming Court decision on SSM. 

But it is funny that liberals in general are social activists, while relatively few conservatives are.  Yet conservatives get hammered constantly.  I'm back to what started this, my concern over the broad brush attack on conservatives.

I wholeheartedly disagree. The rise of Falwell's Moral Majority pegged conservatives as social activists and that tag has yet to be removed.

 

It did turn out well, after a second war 30 years later.  But it's interesting to me that while we broke the political chain with Britain, we kept most of the religious, cultural, and legal traditions.  It's also interesting that the father of conservatism, Edmund Burke believed most vehemently in tradition as the binding to social order.  He wrote extensively about how out-of-control liberalism led to the French Revolution which he despised.  Yet at the same time he approved of the American Revolution. 

Governments everywhere have always had a part in defining marriage.  Utah became a state only after agreement to give up polygamy.  Every state has laws defining both the meaning and requirements for marriage.  It should not be surprising then that the proponents of Prop 8 were disappointed that their state chose to change that definition, in spite of an earlier constitutional amendment by the people defining marriage.  As I said earlier, every state has a constitutional amendment process that includes the people.  In any case, it was the federal court that struck it down.

Governments became entwined in marriage after Luther's Reformulation.

“Marriage is a civic matter. It is really not, together with all its circumstances, the business of the church.”

Since that point in time, marriage became dissoluble. No-fault divorce and remarriage became the law of the land. Then with marriage no longer being a permanent union, children became disposable objects, which opened up the door to the redefinition of the procreative act in marriage. Contraception and abortion became legal. The sexual revolution was in full swing. Then once children and conjugal acts between man and woman were no longer thought as being connected to marriage, marriage made teh next logical jump and it is now being redefined as something other than one man and one woman.

A wise man that I once knew used to remind us all of a very simple, irrefutable truth:

"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."

Why do we keep forgetting that?

[MACVSOG68]

Back to:  "Dems hope for Cruz, fear Bush"

Or in effect, dems hope the GOP will nominate a candidate that pleases their religious wing, but is out of step with the nation and will therefore lose.

So far Rand Paul and Jeb Bush seem to be seeking to gain wider appeal.

The nation as a whole wants pot legalized, and wants people to be able to form pairings and associations as they please, which are expansions of personal freedom, and stepping away from religious incursion into civil law.

I remember after the 2012 loss, when Republicans were admitting they needed to do some serious soul searching, since they appeared to be going away from the demographics and social opinions.

For now that soul searching is set aside, while most seek to appeal to whatever the feel is the "base."

Just remember that now is primary season, when most "run to the right" but then for the general the Republican will "run to the center."

Love to get back to Dems hope for Cruz, etc, but you again enlarge the topic by going after the social conservative side.  If only pot and gay marriage were the important issues.  Yes, a majority of Americans approve of pot and gay marriage, but do they also approve of all the cultural baggage that goes along with these new "rights"?  Changes in the military, pushing new gender identification in schools, significant increases in drugs, violence and sex in movies, music, games are all part of the new cultural changes taking place.

At the same time, the left is also going after religion with a vengeance.  And many even on the center-right are not chastising the left, but rather the right for anything they say that might indicate a disapproval of all this rapid change.

The candidates on the Republican side are more than often being challenged by the press not on the issues of the day, but on gotcha questions like, "so what do you think about gay marriage", or "do you approve of abortion", etc.  Then when they answer, some even here say, "See, it's all about social issues".

Yes, Republican candidates try to appeal to the more active voters during the primary season, and then head toward the center in the general.  But so do the Democrats.  This election the pressure isn't on Hillary though, it's on the Republicans, given that she isn't likely to lose the nomination.  But I do continue to maintain that the Democrats are far more afraid of Bush than of Cruz...at least at this point.

[MACVSOG68]

If you wish to continue injecting Obamacare into a discussion about societal changes and government, go right ahead. I'm not responding any further to what I see as being a red herring being thrown into the discussion.

You and another poster went after all conservatives and conservatism in general.  To then restrict the discussion to only your favorite topic would seem to be the winning red herring.  Can't play under those rules.  It was a good discussion up to that point.  Later.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You and another poster went after all conservatives and conservatism in general.  To then restrict the discussion to only your favorite topic would seem to be the winning red herring.  Can't play under those rules.  It was a good discussion up to that point.  Later.

I didn't "go after" anyone. That's the conservative victim mentality in display.

It's really a far reach to argue that I am going after all conservatives and conservatives in general if you actually read my post #52, and considering the fact that I label myself some manner of a conservative with strong civil libertarian streaks running through my ideology, my going after conservatism doesn't make sense.

I gave my opinion on what I consider to be separate branches of conservatism: Social and Constitutional, and what I see as being troubling with the social branch of conservatism.

I've been very consistently critical of social conservatism as it exists today.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You and another poster went after all conservatives and conservatism in general.  To then restrict the discussion to only your favorite topic would seem to be the winning red herring.  Can't play under those rules.  It was a good discussion up to that point.  Later.

P.S. Obamacare is an affront to Constitutional Conservatism because of the way it was passed, the fact that it mandates the population to purchase a product under penalty of law and a few other things I don;t have the time to list right now.

What it absolutely has noting to do with is organic societal changes, which was the subject of my posts.

[MACVSOG68]

I didn't "go after" anyone. That's the conservative victim mentality in display.

   You just did, referring to it as the "conservative victim mentality".

This was your post to me:

Conservatism is, by the very definition of the word, the idea of "preserving" things. So generally speaking Conservatism opposes change. Now (all these of course are strictly my opinions) Constitutional Conservatism is the idea of preserving the Constitution as the primary focus of governance and a tool to control the government. Social conservatism tries to use the government as a tool to try ans stave off societal changes, and that's when things get ugly.

We spent most of posts talking about social conservatism, especially gay marriage, in spite of my retort that conservatism is much more than simply opposing change, and is far more than the issues of gay marriage and pot.  But many continue to try to define conservatives by the gay marriage issue.  Most have accepted that it's here to stay.  Most want to move on to more important issues.

I've been very consistently critical of social conservatism as it exists today.

I know you have, and I've been consistently critical of many aspects of social liberalism, including some examples I've listed, which you didn't consider important.  We differ on them.

You mentioned earlier that I was in agreement with some USSC decisions such as Loving, and I explained why.  I don't have to agree with every issue in the Religious Right's agenda to defend conservatism in general.

 

[aligncare]

I'm with you MAC in your perspective on social change. I'll just add a little.

Rapid social change is a relatively new phenomenon. Previous generations experienced social change glacially slow compared to computer age generations. Surely there will be physical effects and certainly some psychological impact on the modern psyche, especially as we see the pace of change quickening.

In the same vein, previous generations established immigration policies that allowed a period of assimilation between waves of new immigrants. Time for new groups to fit in. However, todays immigrants, especially illegals, are self selecting in uncontrolled numbers. We are quickly losing hope of ever seeing similar patterns of assimilation into American culture with these new groups that we had seen with previous waves of immigrants.

Conservatives want to keep the traditions and policies that have been shown to work, in essence since civilization began.

[Luis Gonzalez]

  You just did, referring to it as the "conservative victim mentality".

This was your post to me:

We spent most of posts talking about social conservatism, especially gay marriage, in spite of my retort that conservatism is much more than simply opposing change, and is far more than the issues of gay marriage and pot.  But many continue to try to define conservatives by the gay marriage issue.  Most have accepted that it's here to stay.  Most want to move on to more important issues.

I know you have, and I've been consistently critical of many aspects of social liberalism, including some examples I've listed, which you didn't consider important.  We differ on them.

You mentioned earlier that I was in agreement with some USSC decisions such as Loving, and I explained why.  I don't have to agree with every issue in the Religious Right's agenda to defend conservatism in general.

That was PART of my post to you. I take the time to develop my response and explain things in greater detail, so ignoring the totality of my post and drilling down on a portion of it seems very liberal to me.

The reason that most people try and define SOCIAL conservatism/conservatives by their stance on homosexuality and SSM is because those are the leading SOCIAL issues of our time, and SOCIAL conservatives are defining themselves by their "fight" to "defend" the traditional family and the traditional definition of marriage against an increasing level of acceptance from the general population for alternative lifestyles.

My individual definition of my individual core conservative beliefs is simple and very Jeffersonian:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson from Motes on The State of Virginia

Having two gay men (or women) marry diminishes the merit and worth of my marriage in no way. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Obamacare on the other hand picks my pocket and makes it both more difficult and less medically safe and efficient to mend my broken leg.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

It was a good discussion up to that point.  Later.

It is a fascinating discussion, and I thought both you and Luis made really great points.  Thank you both for the thoughtful analysis.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Goldwater was thrown to the wolves in a year when there was no possibility of ANY republican winning right after Kennedy was assassinated and the left wing of the GOP has been using it to their advantage ever since!

"See! That's what happens when you nominate a CONSERVATIVE!"  It's TOTAL BS!

I don't know who you think threw Goldwater to the wolves.  It certainly wasn't liberal Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller or internationalist ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge.  1964 had a very crowded field of moderate Republicans and one far-right "extremism in the age of nuclear Armageddon is no vice" Republican. 

They all ran for the nomination after Kennedy died

Hawaii Senator Hiram Fong the first Asian American to receive votes for president at a major party convention.
"Kennedy Republican" Governor William Scranton of Pennsylvania
Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine the first woman to be placed in nomination for the presidency at a major party's convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1964#Nominee

Goldwater wasn't thrown to the wolves.  He fought tooth and nail to lose the general election.  A stunning defeat that destroyed the GOP in the US House and Senate and gave Johnson the power to pass the "Great Society."

[Bigun]

Goldwater wasn't thrown to the wolves.  He fought tooth and nail to lose the general election.  A stunning defeat that destroyed the GOP in the US House and Senate and gave Johnson the power to pass the "Great Society."

Two words! You figure out what they are!

I never fails to amaze me how easily some people fall for revisionist history BS!

[jmyrlefuller]

Back to the original topic at hand, I would be very wary of what the Democrats say on this topic.

Remember what happened in Missouri when they said many of the same things about Todd Akin that they said about Jeb. That lasted about as long as the primary, and then a week later, boom.

The Democrats know Jeb is a weak candidate who can easily be defeated the moment a primary is finished and they can't change the nomination.

[MACVSOG68]

I'm with you MAC in your perspective on social change. I'll just add a little.

Rapid social change is a relatively new phenomenon. Previous generations experienced social change glacially slow compared to computer age generations. Surely there will be physical effects and certainly some psychological impact on the modern psyche, especially as we see the pace of change quickening.

In the same vein, previous generations established immigration policies that allowed a period of assimilation between waves of new immigrants. Time for new groups to fit in. However, todays immigrants, especially illegals, are self selecting in uncontrolled numbers. We are quickly losing hope of ever seeing similar patterns of assimilation into American culture with these new groups that we had seen with previous waves of immigrants.

Conservatives want to keep the traditions and policies that have been shown to work, in essence since civilization began.

Yes, I agree, our culture and society are changing so rapidly, it's hard to recognize from one year to the next.  And I do think the internet has had a lot to do with it.  People tend more and more to see conservatism in only a bad light, and as I mentioned earlier, I wonder what things would be like without it.   

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Two words! You figure out what they are!

I never fails to amaze me how easily some people fall for revisionist history BS!

Don't be like that Bigun.  I've got no animosity towards you.  I've got an opinion, and a strong opinion.  I think the '64 Goldwater campaign tanked the GOP.  You've corrected me before, and I have thanked you for it. 

Please. 

Show me how the Powers-That-Be tanked the conservative campaign of Goldwater.  Give me something except amazement at my gullibility and a veiled invective.  I am ready to be enlightened.

[MACVSOG68]

That was PART of my post to you. I take the time to develop my response and explain things in greater detail, so ignoring the totality of my post and drilling down on a portion of it seems very liberal to me.

Sort of like my mentioning of Obamacare.

The reason that most people try and define SOCIAL conservatism/conservatives by their stance on homosexuality and SSM is because those are the leading SOCIAL issues of our time, and SOCIAL conservatives are defining themselves by their "fight" to "defend" the traditional family and the traditional definition of marriage against an increasing level of acceptance from the general population for alternative lifestyles.

I think it expands even beyond simply same-sex marriage, to all of the LGBT issues of today, and of the wider acceptance of sexual predilection in everyday social activity.  The heroes of today are the Bruce Jenners and Bradley Mannings, not because of their history, but because of their "new" genders.  Is it right to wince at such things?  I do, and I know a lot of others do also. 

My individual definition of my individual core conservative beliefs is simple and very Jeffersonian:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson from Motes on The State of Virginia

And most conservatives believe that.

Having two gay men (or women) marry diminishes the merit and worth of my marriage in no way. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Obamacare on the other hand picks my pocket and makes it both more difficult and less medically safe and efficient to mend my broken leg.

You see I don't have any problem with your belief on same-sex marriage, nor do I have an issue with those who do.  Perhaps it's the libertarian part of my conservative nature.  And until three or four years ago, most Americans felt that a state that wanted SSM could have it; those that did not should not have it.  It would seem that freedom of choice apparently must be decided only by liberals, not conservatives.