Do we spike their methods and attacks (which is called progressivism) and educate people on proper role of govt (which we will always have to do if you want to keep the Constitution) or do we climb into their boat and talk about fidelity to the constitution sometimes and then be just as progressive sometimes?
If you say it's the latter by fighting at all levels of govt WITH The govt (DOMA, War on Drugs, etc), then how are you going to differentiate conservatism with liberalism when you educate people?
Thinking people will see right thru you that you're just as big govt as a liberal, you just use it differently than they do and in the end, the results are this election. Fewer people showed up to vote against the communist Obama vs a moderately maybe possibly pro-constitution republican Romney.
As for me, the answer is the former. On this issue, on the war on drugs, on all of it. The founder's libertarianism was right then and it's right now. Progressivism is progressivism and we've lost already if we fight against their agenda to destroy the constitution by destroying it ourselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act: "Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state." (emphasis added)
That clause is exactly a forswearing of power not an exercise of power.
"Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns."
You can argue that the federal government shouldn't provide any employee insurance or Social Security survivors' benefits, or regulate immigration, or collect income taxes - but if you grant that any of those are as a whole within their powers, you can't then argue that setting specific policies in those areas is outside their powers.
We will fight at all levels of government. And yes we are conservatives fighting to conserve our unalienable rights, one of which is to be free of unwelcome, unconstitutional federal intervention into our lives. If libertarians have a problem fitting that into their libertarian viewpoints, that’s their problem not mine.