Individual liberty can only be protected if the common defense is first provided for. The common defense is an aspect of the common good. The common defense and the common good are logically prior to the State's promotion of individual liberty.
"Providing for the common good" is a much much broader concept than is contemplated by our Constitution
So why is "the general welfare" mentioned in the Preamble?
Maybe you consider "the general Welfare" and socialism to be synonymous. They're not.
Marriage is about children.
Without an institution to promote children there is no society for the future.
Society does not reward the sex act, society rewards the result.
Homosexual acts never produce children.
Hetersexual acts do produce children.
Society is rewarding the institution of Marriage, not the individual in a marriage.
The common defense comes firts, but the common defense is BOTH part of the states promotion of individual liberty AND the common good. However, the common good is a much broader concept that includes social directives that cannot logically be considered more important than the State's protection of individual liberty. So why is "the general welfare" mentioned in the Preamble?
The Preamble does not set the Constitutional limits of the federal government. Also, I am not arguing that the general welfare is not a legitimate aim of government. I am just stating that if you consider it more important than protecting individual liberty, you are one of the few.
Really, at least throw in some words to maintain a pretense that "the common good" isn't just being tossed in as a complete non sequitur.
In any case, it was recognized by the Founders that the common good is not a prerequisite for liberty -- hence the phrase "the pursuit of happiness" rather than simply "happiness". You can fail to catch up to happiness, in which case "the common good" would not be satisfied but you would nevertheless be free.