Should social conservatism and social liberalism stay out of federal politics?

Question

Should so-called moral issues like abortion and gay marriage remain as state matters and not federal matters.
Bush is America's first social conservative president, who has proven himself to be a fiscal liberal with deficit spending and bigger government. The moniker of conservative given to Bush and his supporters has confused the American electorate.
The social conservative agenda is to establish family values as the law of the land. Fiscal control, a balanced budget, and a stramlined government, matters of concern for fiscal conservatives, are of no importance to social conservatives.
Isn't it time we consider reestablishing state's rights and return these moral issues to the state legislatures where they belong?

Answer 1

you must be gay.

Answer 2

You are absolutely right about these issues. there are a few, more courageous politicians who acknowledge thier opposition to the party they represent when it comes to social issues adopted by it. Rudy Guiliani, Arnold Swatrzenegger and a few more conservatives have acknowledged their liberal and moderate stands on a few social issues. I commend them for that. Joseph Lieberman, perhaps the only democrat with a pair of stones, has come out in favor of sending in more troops to combat the Islamic jihad and help displace the insurgency in Iraq. He too, deserves kudos for his independent thinking unlike the rest of those lemmings in the democratic congress. Their pitiful lack of courage and commitment to their own beliefs is deferred to the party unity, right or wrong, because when this happens there is usually only one person doing the thinking. Shame on them and shame on the flea circus that let it happen!

Autonomy on a state level can be a good thing, however when a state such as Ilinois elects a self serving trickster, in the case of Rod Blogoavich, as governor and allows him to enact his loose cannon philosophy, like buying drugs from Canada that were shipped there from the states to begin with. These drugs were not assessed R&D expenses which made them that much cheaper.

What Blogo fails to take into account is that a trade deal was negotiated in order for Canada to enjoy cheaper prices. If he truly wants cheaper drug prices for Illinois, then he should negotiate with the drug companiesand not pull his parasite mauveuring and shows his truly poor character by jumping on Canada's band wagon.
I believe that a state like Illinois, with it's corruption issues and long list of dishonest politicians at both state, county, and city levels still needs federal supervision.

Answer 3

The federal government is a bloated monster that consumes entirely too much money and does this through acquitition of power. Do not misunderstand, I am a conservative, but both parties spend like drunken sailors at the federal level. The primary responsibility of the federal government is to protect her citizens from enemies abroad , not from themselves. Personally, I'm not a big proponant of gay marriage or abortion, but that needs to be decided by the great state of Texas, where I choose to call home.

Answer 4

"The social conservative agenda is to establish family values as the law of the land." Considering many of these social conservatives are really preaching "don't do as I do, but as I say" is laughable at best. These are the people that introduced the term irreconsireable differances into divorce laws so that their infidelity would not become public record. These are the same people who have created the single parent family as being the most pravelent form of parenting today. These are the people that elect a President who would enshrine discrimination into the constitution, yet turn around and say that the VP's lesbian daughter will make a good mother while stripping that child of all its legal protections. Children prosper when they grow up in loving surroundings that is nurturing within boundaries. It takes a village to raise a child and to say that the social conservatives idea of the family fits this bill is to be deluded at best. We no longer live in a society where one parent worked while the other remained home to raise the children, most of todays children are raised by neither parent, toddlers and preschool aged children are raised by day care centres which people think is a right, and then once they become school age we expect the schoold system to provide guidance to our children. Here is a moral issue for you: "Are there any family values being instilled in children today being raised without parental guidance?"

To call abortion and gay marriage a moral issue, then the family value argument has to be looked at as a moral issue as well. I am Canadian and have the right to marriage and a family, but I do not think that right should extend to me expecting the nation to subsidize that right whether biological or by adoption. Having children should be returned to the status of a priviledge and that doing so entails responsibility. The only reason anti-abortionist want unwanted babies born is they are only interested in adopting newborn children, not the millions of older children waiting for foster parents or adoption. These same people don't want gay men adopting (they can't stop Lesbians from having children) because that is competition, as usually gay men who decide to raise a child are more affluent and can provide a more stable environment. But by throwing out the baby with the bathwater they denie older children a chance to have stable home. Gay people don't insist on a newborn when adopting they are more willing to take children currently in the foster system.

All morallity is based on one Golden rule, "Do unto others, as you would have them done unto you". So is social conservatism even moral or just a case of Do as I say, not as I do. People who live in glass houses, really shouldn't throw rocks, because some day their actions are going to come back and bite them.

I feel that is already happening today as children show a lack of civility and respect for authority. They don't buy into family values because very few have ever experienced it. Politics whether state or federal should stay out of the personal lives of its citizens. As we have seen recently more and more the ones we hold up as our moral compasses are nothing but tin men waiting to be knocked over for their indescretions and hypocrisy.

Answer 5

not extremely. real R'ism change into consistently considered economic conservatism and social libertarianism. Even diverse R's like Rockefeller and Goldwater agreed on social libertarianism, e.g. help of a lady's good to verify. even as the GOP abandoned economic conservatism they mandatory a platform and devised the Southern frame of mind which tried to hearth up non secular conservatives to vote hostile to abortion and in desire of discrimination hostile to gays. sarcastically, the Mormons and blacks, 2 communities victimized by discrimination, joined the chorus. What defines R'ism must be economic conservatism and social libertarianism. regrettably, the neocons characterize neither. once you've examine my solutions you may want to imagine Im schizophrenic, critically serious of neocon R's yet figuring out myself as a R. **** has no fury like someone scorned. even as the neocons took over they lost me. really real R'ism brings me lower back. Palin, and her ilk, ain't it. stick with-up: Spending for the period of Bush change into an obscenity - hypocritical, only for the neocons. real R's did not help such spending. Bailouts? After the pony is out of the barn we favor to fix the priority, inspite of the reason.

Answer 6

Agreed, he sure is no fiscal conservative!

Answer 7

ALL socialism should stay out of ANY politics. I would hate it if America turned into cowardly Spain, for example.

Answer 8

Sounds about right.