The two of you, also sound more like libertarians. I was never a fan of Goldwater. Would you say that your views are similar to his?
I'm not a libertarian. Libertarians tend to have a more national outlook than conservatives do (which is why Goldwater wasn't really a libertarian).
I actually feel that the gay marriage issue
should be left to the states to decide. When I argue in favor of allowing gay marriage to be recognized, its because these socially conservative positions do more to hamper state's-rights conservatism than they benefit it. To me, it is a case of shooting oneself in the foot.
Tragically for the state's-rights movement, it has continuously been usurped by those who would seek to hold others down. Jim Crow, slavery, anti-civil rights, anti-gay marriage, etc. It has given the State's-rights agenda a bad name, and it has always been in the name of "tradition" or "values" something similar.
At some point, the philosophical underpinnings of the movement shifted away from smaller, more localized forms of governance to being about these particular issues. It became a farce of itself when somewhere, someone decided that in order to be conservative one
must: consider global warming to be fake, support strict immigration laws, promote guns, love God, support interventionist wars, support the war on drugs, actively oppose same-sex marriages, desire tax breaks for the wealthy, say the pledge with a tear in your eye (just ignore the fact that it was written by a socialist), etc.
Once this became the overarching "agenda" of conservatism, it lost most of it's roots in dual-federalism and has enmeshed itself in the cooperative federalism of the New Deal, creating the current neo-federalism we see espoused by conservatives today. This neo-federalism calls for
some return to the dual-federalism of the past, but this return is only a fraction of what was extant in the past under a true dual-federalist society. It cherry picks from both systems. I disagree with it being done this way.
I'm
far closer to the dual-federalism perspective than the average modern conservative is (although the modern understanding of federalism is so hindered by the Hamiltonian Federalist party that I call myself an anti-federalist in part to avoid Hamiltonian associations, and in part because I am like the anti-federalists in that I believe that the constitution gave too much power to the federal government).
Now, that doesn't mean I'm universally for small government or for semi-unlimited personal freedom (like a modern libertarian would be). I believe in the value of government intervention, I just disagree with the scale at which it occurs. I'd prefer it if the State and local governments held primacy over the federal government in most cases. I believe there are certain issues which absolutely necessitate federal primacy (such as common defense, inter-state commerce, foreign affairs, etc) but on the vast majority of issues, the State's should hold sway.
One thing I would add to the constitution is a prohibition upon the states preventing inferior treatment of minorities.
