It depends on how you define 'conservative'.
I consider the core of conservatism at the national level to be:
1. Strong national defense
2. Low taxes
3. Strict constructionist judges with regard to rights reserved for the states.
The Constitution was designed not to give the Federal government any say over social issues.
Well said! Last I knew, conservatives wanted government out of our lives and out of our bedrooms.
Too late.
Surely you're not suggesting that we abandon the social issue law and regulations to the Leftists on principal?
What does that mean?
There are several elements that comprise that lofty objective. Many of those elements are not supported by many legislators... democrats and republicans.
Exactly.
Murder is not a social issue. The DoI observes a right to life.
Congress shall not infringe ownership & possession of weapons.
"Gay marriage" isn't marriage, however you cut it. Two guys can't make a baby, impossible, no hope, period, full stop.
Congress may promote the general welfare, but not by robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Ordering Peter to pay Paul is also not tolerable.
I can arrange my own retirement plan, thank you very much.
Preventing the federal gov't from meddling in these social issues is also the core of conservatism; anyone (Rudy) who does meddle contrary to the above points rapidly loses his "conservative" mantle.
And actively ensuring the gov't does not meddle in social issues must not be confused with meddling in social issues.
No. 2 on your list directly regards social issues. You cannot be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative, since the enormous funding required for the social agenda is what drives taxes. Since when did wanting to end the left's practice of using the government to drive their social agenda become nonconservative?