-2 votes

So What Kind of Social Conservative Are You?

If you describe yourself as a "social conservative", what kind are you?

Do you think the government should be involved in discrimination or regulating people's private lives or do you think we should "live and let live" and JUST focus on Fiscal Issues?

Or.... do you side with Rob Portman and Rand Paul who are both Social Conservatives who have evolved on marriage equality. Rand Paul most recently said he wanted to “shake up the Republican position.”

“I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” said Paul. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”

http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/13/rand-paul-get-the-governm...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cyril's picture

Are you not a constitutionalist? Well, depends.

"Are you not a constitutionalist?"

Well, depends. One has to define "constitutionalist" first.

If "constitutionalist" means interpreting the Constitution LITERALLY - AND CERTAINLY NOT as a living document, like King ObaMARX does:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/a_clear_danger_obama_...

Then, yes: I am "a constitutionalist".

Thus, do you see my point? Even King ObaMARX, HIMSELF, and some Federal Courts judges CAN certainly define themselves as "constitutionalists" - problem is: THEIR way to do so is, IMO, and in Dr. Ron Paul's, the ANTI-THESIS of what the founders had intended:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

THAT is THE BIG LIE of the "living Constitution" proponents. The BIG fraud of the Imaginary Constitution, denounced by Ron Paul for decades.

That allows them to BETRAY BOTH the language and the ideas conveyed by CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT FOUNDING TEXTS the interpretation of which ought to have remained STRICTLY LITERAL, with AN IDENTICAL MEANING as the one of their time of inception.

Does ANYONE need PROOFS ?

We can just LOOK at what they are now doing with the 2nd Amendment, the 4th, the 9th, and the 10th. DAILY. BY THE HOUR. BY THE MINUTE.

We can just read "the news".

WHAT DOES THE ARTICLE 1, SECTION 10 of the Constitution say about legal tender and money, again ?

Isn't it "a glitch", there, as compared TO WHAT YOU CONCRETELY EXPERIENCE every single day of your life ? When was the last time you made a deposit or withdrawal of gold or silver at your bank, in order to deal with your daily ?

WHAT EXACTLY ARE those cotton and ink "bank notes" - are they actually money ? Answer, and, sadly, THE UGLY TRUTH :

http://youtu.be/NZO9Io3PSmk

If one IN POSITION POWER over an entire People, as their government, can betray THAT MUCH the notion of money ITSELF (well, yes!) - what does that tell you on their capabilities about EVERYTHING ELSE, as well ?

Ever since 1913, the American People's governments HAVE PURPOSELY DRIFTED "by light years" AWAY FROM a literal interpretation of the Constitution to push THEIR entirely different agenda(s) by means of DEMAGOGUERY - false promises with big plans for "a greater common good for all", thanks to some adjustments (THEIRS, exclusively) on what words mean.

That is why I dislike, I am more and more wary of thinking in terms of ideologies, and "-isms", as people are PRECISELY always more and more RECKLESS with them - NOT paying attention to the various kinds of betrayals against the very notions, concepts, ideas, and nouns they are supposed to denote. The liars and traitors who get to speak last and the most often are always the ones winning at this game insulting the People's intelligence, their foundations, and their History.

"BTW what does WP stand for?"

Sorry. I use sometimes abbreviations or acronyms that aren't quite in use as common as I assume: WP = Wikipedia.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

GOP women are drawn to the passion

... of the liberty alpha-males ;)

They know it ... We know it ...

{ it's gonna take a miracle before I'd put that R by my name again }

Hey some people post Soft Porn others post Hot Polls

That's Liberty. If multiple people are offended by the title I might change it, Now that's Democracy!

http://www.dailypaul.com/278402/hey-whats-up-with-the-soft-p...

FTR: Mental Midgets Down Vote Without Commenting

This a legitimate question even though it's wrapped in humor.

Mental midgets are the ones

Mental midgets are the ones who go back into their lame posts and vote themselves back up.

OMG How did you know I as thinking of YOU when I wrote that?!

Did you vote yourself up?? NOOOO, you'd Never do that! LOL

This Is One Of THE STUPIDIST Posts

I have ever seen on DP. And I have posted a few myself. But DAMN!

skippy

STUPIDIST?! or Stupidest?

Because there is a difference.

there also a difference in people that can use there words to express themselves and those who only rely on the "down-vote" button

Oh Well Okay

type-o, duh, re-read your reply. You aren't exactly the grammar or spelling police yourself. I usually double check my spelling. Didn't this time. So, sue me. It's still the stupidEST post I have seen here! And BTW, I didn't downvote you though you REALLY deserve it. And at least I know the difference between there, their and they're but I guess you already know that since you are SO smart when it comes to such things!

skippy

haha you got me

i've gotten worse over the years at caching those errors. i was just giving you shit! lol

Social conservative???

Why the need to lable a lable?

Conservative | Define Conservative at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative

disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

I am a conservative (and a conservationist, not an environmentalist), and I have no problem with homosexual secular legal unions/ domestic partnerships that give the same secular rights to homosexual couples as religious couples.

I think of marriage as religious with sacraments that do not apply to homosexual unions.

This is simular to the abortion issue.. I am pro-life and object to the government forcing Catholic hospitals to preform abortion and issue birth control on demand. If the state wants to provide that, while I can protest my tax money going there, I could support a pro-life hospital with my healthcare. Catholic hospitals are being forced to close.

For the state to force the Catholic Church to marry homosexuals, is just another attack on the Church.. who lost it's school system decades ago... Why isn't a legal secular same sex union good enough?

There is a difference between being truly righteous and

being self righteous. You, (((((Granger))))) are truly a righteous person. I do agree with the positions you take in you comment.

As to the self righteous, well, God gets the last laugh on 'em:

http://www.dailypaul.com/278402/hey-whats-up-with-the-soft-p... Check it out for a really good laugh!

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

I just spoke to god and BIG surprise,

he says you both are self-righteous! He also said you are both going to hell!

I asked him if he was sure and he said , yes, you both have had plenty of chances to change you ways but haven't.

Sorry about it!

OMFG! Wait Aren't you at CPAC???? LOL!!

BTW Granger,I LOVE your straw man arguments, Miss conservative catholic!

Why is this posted?

It proves nothing.

I consider myself somewhat of a libertarian, somewhat of a social conservative. But more than either, I am a constitutionalist. As such, on a national, federal level, there should never have been any say whatsoever on any point anything to do with marriage, one way or another.

Sadly, on the one hand the social conservative will swear "constitution, constitution, constitution" but then doesn't give a crap if the federal govt made a stand against "gay marriage." Pathetic.

On the other hand, the libertarian will also swear "constitution, constitution, constitution" but then doesn't give a crap if the federal govt made a stand in favor of "Gay marriage." Also, just as pathetic.

It's posted because I'm curious

IMO, If we want fiscal conservatism to prevail, I think we need to drop the push for social conservatism.

And you are wrong about marriage equality being a "state issue".

It has been ruled that marriage is a constitutional/fundamental right.

Look up Loving v. Virginia as well as the 14th Amendment to the **CONSTITUTION**

Also I am "Pro-life"

But whether I am pro-life or pro-choice, I think Roe should be overturned...but only for that to be handed back to the states.

right or wrong...that will never happen

.

Lots to stand in the way.

Ok, first of all, ESPECIALLY in light of the recent "discovery" that Mississippi never really ratified the 13th amendment, I believe there are questions about whether or not the 14th was passed in a proper manner.

Second, even if we agree to the 14th, I don't see how the 14th applies to marriage. It should be a personal or state issue, according to the 9th and 10th amendments.

If it does, how do you go from interracial marriage to intrasexual marriage? I don't follow the logic.

All that said, at the end of the day, if you want to make a contract with another person, make it. If you want to call a person your "partner," your same sex "husband" or "Wife" or "Slave" or whatever...if you want to be with ten wives or ten husbands, whatever.

The real danger in all of this is that if the federal govt recognizes it, we know where this is going...everyone will be forced to recognize these marriages, no matter what state you live in. If you choose to not cover your employees and their spouses because you won't recognize it for religious reasons, you are going to get sued or forced to recognize it.

For many years, it was said, "We just want to be able to do what we want, we dont want to ram it down anyone's throat." Then, "We just want tot he same rights to marry as anyone else, we don't want to ram it down anyone's throat." But guess what, if the federal govt recognizes gay marriage, then those who have certain religious views will have it rammed down their throats. Simple as that.

THAT is not freedom, that is not liberty. That will certainly not be freedom of religion.

(Again, I am opposed to ANY federal recognition or prohibition or anything marriage related. I oppose DOMA but do not favor the opposite either.)

Marriage is a state issue EXCEPT WHEN...

People are not treated equally under the law. Which is what the 14th is about...due process, equal treatment for all, etc

The fact is that I can't enter into the same contracts as you because I am gay.

BTW Religion was once used to validate segregation and keeping blacks as 2nd class citizens so the Religious freedom argument will fall by the wayside with this issue too

Oh, I hear you.

Believe me, I know this. This is a huge slippery slope. Let the guy have his "whites only" or "blacks only" or "men only" or "women only" place. We say, "Oh that guy can have his free speech and his views but he can't do with his own money and his own property whatever he wants to do...that is not a "freedom" or "liberty" argument and why someone like Goldwater or Dr paul would be opposed to the Civil Rights Act.

The difference here is that with treating someone as a second hand citizen because of their race is contrary to scripture and contrary to the Gospel and contrary to what Christ taught. There is nothing contrary to the Scripture or the gospel or Christ in saying homosexuality is a sin. So...while I think legally, there will be national recognition of gay marriage by 2020, I think it will be an issue with those who think it a sin for along time.

Scripture backs up slavery/keeping blacks seperate

there's no denying history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois&feature=youtube_g...

As far as homosexuality, Christ NEVER taught that it was wrong...in fact he never ever mentions it.

He did teach the golden rule though!!

And No, I will get to "gay marry" this summer...no need to wait til 2020!

SCOTUS will be overturning DOMA and Prop 8 in June

Scripture does back slavery, you are right...but not chattel

Slavery is biblical, that is true. I admit it. It also tells us how slaves are to act AND how masters are to treat their slaves. Wasn't a lot of that going on, it seems.

Race division? I see that in the OT, but wiped away in the NT.

I believe in the Golden Rule. In Foreign Policy, in domestic issues, etc. In this case, I just don't see how gay marriage is the outflow of that.

Respect, care for, listen to...yes, yes, yes. Accepting it as valid when believing it to be sinful? Can't get past it.

Can you try and put yourself in my shoes?

What if the government had separate laws for christians that made them 2nd class citizens?

Would you feel any differently at that point?