Culture Wars Spark Flip-Flop On States' Rights

Forward ^ | 1/9/03 | ORI NIR

[antiRepublicrat]

It is kind of funny, isn't it? I've noticed for a while that many conservatives don't mind trampling on several of the first 10 Amendments when it comes to their pet causes. Are these conservatives just the flip side of the liberal coin?

[Support Free Republic]

These Guys Don't Want You To Donate!
	Tick them off! Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[ellery]

bttt

[Arkinsaw]

It is kind of funny, isn't it? I've noticed for a while that many conservatives don't mind trampling on several of the first 10 Amendments when it comes to their pet causes. Are these conservatives just the flip side of the liberal coin?

Can be. You have conservatives who believe in Constitutional principles over all else, and you have conservatives who believe in social engineering to counteract the opponent social engineering.

[tacticalogic]

I've noticed for a while that many conservatives don't mind trampling on several of the first 10 Amendments when it comes to their pet causes.

Social conservatives/political liberals. The end justifies the means.

[augggh]

You have conservatives who believe in Constitutional principles over all else, and you have conservatives who believe in social engineering to counteract the opponent social engineering.

Ultimately, if they believe in social engineering, wouldn't the latter just be liberals with different pet causes?

[expat_panama]

If states should have the right to outlaw abortion and sodomy, should states also have the rights to make marriage available for any kind of union?

I'll have to work on that one.

[John Beresford Tipton]

Q: "Are these conservatives just the flip side of the liberal coin?"

A: Yes, both are philosophical hoes, just walking on different sides of the street.

[King Black Robe]

Hogwash. The FMA will secure federalism on this issue by banning Judges from legislating from the bench. Other than protecting the word "marriage," which is already taken, everything else is up for grabs by state legislatures.

But why should the truth get in the way of a good argument?

[Robson]

I think part of this is a result of Americans' attempt to fit a boatload of political issues and positions into two parties. At the very least, there are two major political axes -- Left/Right and Libertarian/Authoritarian. Both leftists and rightists accuse each other of authoritarian behavior.

For example, Joe Lieberman and John Ashcroft are on opposite sides of the left/right axis, but are both authoritarians.

And here's another one that really threw me for a loop -- when I read Free Republic's mission statement, I agreed with 85%-90% of it, yet I disagree with most of the positions represented in these forums.

The "liberal/conservative" dichotomy can't contain the entirety of American political discourse.

[x]

The flaw in the theory is that Republicans aren't so much battling state populations or legislatures as state courts that impose decisions on states and their governments. There would be a serious conflict if a state decided on its own for gay marriage. Consistency might make some Republicans or conservatives, or federalists support marriages between persons of the same sex, but given the way things are, they are justified in opposing court-mandated gay marriage.

So far, no state has wanted "gay marriage" or opted for civil unions without court prodding, so I don't see any glaring contradiction among conservatives. To be sure, this may change in the future.

Is "domestic partnership" marriage, though? There may be plenty of wiggle room between accepting another state's "domestic partnership" or "civil union" laws and instituting "gay marriage."

[antiRepublicrat]

If states should have the right to outlaw abortion and sodomy, should states also have the rights to make marriage available for any kind of union?

Tough one for a neocon, huh? It's not tough if you believe in enduring states' rights above current hot-topic issues that come and go. As long as no clear constitutional right is being violated (as was the case in the Jim Crow days), the feds should stay out of state business.

[antiRepublicrat]

so I don't see any glaring contradiction among conservatives.

That's just one issue. Many conservatives also support other violations of states' rights, like the federal drug laws.

[Salgak]

That's because, while they LOOK like Conservatives, they THINK like Statists. When you blend the Right Wing with Statism, you get a predictable and all-too-familiar result: Fascism.

[antiRepublicrat]

That's because, while they LOOK like Conservatives, they THINK like Statists. When you blend the Right Wing with Statism, you get a predictable and all-too-familiar result: Fascism.

Nice summation.

[Land of the Free 04]

bump

[hedgetrimmer]

NO when you blend the LEFT Wing globalists with the federal government you get fascism. This is a more accurate assessment of the current disfunction of America.

[hedgetrimmer]

Funny you take the effort to come on to a conservative forum to bash conservatives. Don't you know that social humilation and name calling is a technique that the fascists in Italy used to force their system on the public? It stifles public debate. Is that what you are trying to do?

[antiRepublicrat]

Don't you know that social humilation and name calling is a technique that the fascists in Italy used to force their system on the public? It stifles public debate. Is that what you are trying to do?

I just agreed to a very logically laid out conclusion. If you accept that those conservatives who espouse the ultimate power of federal government to override every aspect of the government of the states can be labelled statist (I do), and if you accept that many conservatives are what you would call "right wing" socially (many are), then the conclusion that they are facist in nature is a sound one.