[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?

[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.

[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.

[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."

[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.

[jwalsh07]

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?

No, social conservatives, like me, are constitutionalists and we take the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government to heart.

So when judicial oligarchy rears its ugly head, which it does ever so more often these days, we oppose it on Constitutional grounds.

Judicial tyranny is the problem, not social conservatives.