It's a distraction tactic. If you say that gay marriage isn't really marriage but a matter that should be solved by the states you can prolong the discussion and never really deal with.
The fact of the matter is that gay marriage shouldn't be debated as 'gay marriage' but as a matter of 'marriage' and whether it should be recognized by the federal government the same way straight marriage and interracial marriage are. States rights is Dixiecrat created and borrowed Republican bull**** used whenever people don't really want to discuss an issue because they know they'll lose.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
Equality is something these religious zealots just aren't comfortable with.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
How are you helping your argument that right-wing politicians do not actively try to promote social conservatism by providing examples of them doing just that?Faith Based Initiatives.
The Center for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships
God's standard of presidential candidates :
Huck, the Constitution and 'God's standards' - First Read - msnbc.com
Political organizations :
The Fellowship (Christian organization) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What haven't they done? All they can do to reverse Roe v Wade is appoint conservative SC judges, which they have done. And have you forgotten about Bush's gay marriage amendment? Proposition 8, and its equivalent in some 35 other states?No. What is being argued is that if social conservatives really had a real dog in America's fight to move to the left, they would have used it already wouldn't they? But they haven't.
Social conservatism may be losing momentum, but that is not for the lack of effort of social conservatives, be them citizens or politicians.
The pro-life movement isn't losing ground; in fact, in recent years its even gained support.So they have nothing left to do but try to pass whatever is left on their agenda that a bare majority might agree on because they've lost or are losing ground on every real social issue. From education to marriage.
Okay, but I thought you meant that those things were part of the social conservative agenda specifically, which they're not.That doesn't even make sense. If the majority of conservatives are social conservatives then that would still leave cutting taxes and interventionism as part of their agenda.
Which is what I was responding to. You make it seem as if most conservatives don't support tax cuts; you even said it again here:In response to tax cuts. Keep up.
What I said was it doesn't matter whether or not it's relevant to most people (and incidentally, IMO, it is), since that has nothing to do with whether or not most conservatives support it.They want people to unite under 'causes' so that they can get these people to agree on cutting taxes and other matters which are of zero real relevance to the average American citizen
This statement is so incorrect that it makes me question how much you even know about the SCOTUS. Constitutional issues have always been solved through the SCOTUS, and if marriage happens to be involved in a Constitutional issue, as with Loving v Virginia, then they deal with that too.
Marriage matters my friend have always been solved through SCOTUS.
Have you even read the Bill of Rights? I suggest taking a look at the 10th Amendment.This other silly bull**** of states solving matters which concern people across the entire country is (not surprisingly) a Dixiecrat tactic that originated in the 1950s and 60s to stop desegregation and was then picked up by Republicans like Nixons in the 70s.
About state rights? Probably not; see proposed pro-life/anti-gay marriage amendments. But I wasn't arguing that they were concerned with it; I was arguing that because, whether you like it or not, this is currently a state issue, it can currently only be solved on the state level.Of course they(social conservatives) aren't really concerned with it.
They tried to pass an amendment on it; the fact that that amendment didn't pass doesn't change the fact that they tried. And they've prevented it from being legalized in all but 5 or 6 states. That'll probably change sometime soon, but they've done all they could have to slow the movement down.Otherwise they would have done something serious about really stopping gay marriage or abortion. But what have they done?
Yes, it's all a conspiracy.Protests and TV interviews and that is exactly what the elites within the Republican party want.
Hasn't it crossed your mind that Republican politicians might be concerned with social issues as well as fiscal/economic/military issues?