No, it’s the classical conservative position.
(Ironically known as “classically liberal” back in the late 1700s.)
It’s only since 1950s or so has the “conservative” (as opposed to “classic conservative”) position morphed into a imposing-moralistic position.
So I was for it before I was against it?
I learn something new about myself every day.
I think you're promoting a common (and false) dichotomy: Libertarians say "anything goes" vs Conservative "impose my morals". The truth is a bit more complicated than that.
Conservatism is about learning the lessons of the past. Preserve the accumulated wisdom of generations past, both religious and social. Many times, those lessons overlap.
Frequently, the Conservative and Libertarian ideals overlap extensively as well.
While history shows that liberty generally leads to prosperity and widespread benefit, there are boundaries. It makes socialogical sense to shape the law according to lessons learned over the long term, regardless of their moral content.
Homosexuality is very bad for society in the long run. While it's easy to argue that there is nobody directly harmed by adult homosexuality, such arguments are also naive or disingenuous. There are long-term harms to others. The demographic consequences of unchecked homosexuality, for one example, would be devastating.
It's not an imposition of morals to apprciate these facts and legislate accordingly, IMO.
Cheney’s position is the classic 18th Cen. Liberal position. Personally, although I think it is morally wrong, this decision should be left to the States. My real concern is people being sued for refusing to take part in the wedding, like the New Mexico photographer.
Defending the moral foundations of civilization against degeneracy and subversion doesn’t strike me as forcing morality on anybody. It’s the anything-goes crowd of the left that is cramming *amorality* doen *our* throats. If defending ourselves against this disgusting agenda is “imposing” morality,then so be it.
Absolutely. Somebody could wright a lengthy and probably interesting book about the position swaps the competing political ideologies have taken the last 300 years.
Just think, less than 50 years ago, Jack Kennedy campaigned on a platform of the (nuclear) missile deficit. By today's standards in the Democratic party, Kennedy was an ultra-hawk - and a supply-sider, but that's another conversation.