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.