Conservative double standards

Depends on how you define "liberal." I view him more as a corporate sell-out relativist, just like most politicians.

 

being a corporate sellout doesnt change all the rest of his liberal beliefs.

 

And he's not really liberal when you compare him to a "real" liberal. Obama is more of a centrist.

 

hes pro abortion pro gay marriage pro amnesty pro big government, believes in redistribution of wealth and was once a member of the socialist "new party" so yeah hes a liberal

 

"do they only want big government on issues they agree with?"

Perhaps you do not realise how stupid this question is. Just look at this question, and see how it rests on the silly assumption that it's somehow a deviation from some principle that they wouldn't support big government all the time. And realise how that is as stupid as saying "oh, so lefties don't support a super-big military. seems they only want big-government on stuff they agree with, huhuhu, hypocrites!" It amazes me that there's people who think in this big vs small government dichotomy as if that was what politics was about. As if people would just adopt this aribtrary principle that "more government is always better, derpy derp" or the opposite. My god... I'm sorry if I ruined some one's eureka moment when they discovered that one side wasn't consistent with the principles they never had.

What we have here is an attempt to portray a group as hypocrites, based on a flase understanding of their actual beliefs, and which shows what a grasp on politics some people have.

 

I do not believe that "respect" for other religions should amount to our society's acquiescence to them...

I am still chuckling at your statement that the people of Utah were once "bared," as if they were nudists. (Okay, it was a mere typo; but it was still humorous.)

I very much doubt that a defense of polygamy (or polyandry) is what the senators and congresspeople had in mind when they proposed this amendment, or what the citizens of three-fourths of the states had in mind when they ratified it.

With this, we have you on record...

All of which amounts to an argument in favor of statism. (It does sound so much better, I suppose, if it is dressed up as mere "secularism," since that is intended to convey the impression of neutrality in matters of religion; even thougn, in contemporary America, the secular/progressive movement is definitely hostile to religion.)

 

Society does not necessarily have to acquiesce to the changes, government does. The basic structure of the government requires that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If polygamy is a core tenet to a religion, as it was under Mormonism prior to the reform, then Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of polygamy. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the same applicable to the States. The reform demanded of Utah during the fight for statehood remains untested in the Courts to this day, and would have arguably been unconstitutional.

Ever heard of a typo? I meant barred. My "r" key won't respond to rapid double-pressing. Since posting here isn't the only thing I do, I was in a rush and didn't fully proofread my post word-for-word with the utmost of scrutiny. So yeah, laugh it up, since I'm sure you've never once made a typo.

Probably not, nor is it what was anticipated when the Supreme Court decided Maynard v. Hill in 1888, nor was it anticipated that the representative democracy the Framers enshrined for us in the Constitution would grow to become a partisan duopoly of views. Times change, and that is one of the significant lessons to be gleamed from the longevity of the Constitution.

So be it. I have no problems being pro-polygamy.

I would have no problem if the entire institution of marriage were removed from government recognition. Of course (and pay attention Texmaster, this'll blow your little theory out of the water) as long as nobody under the age of eighteen is allowed to enter a marriage.

 

.....which means nothing coming from a conservative.

 

explain why that means nothing

 

"RINOs" are liberal coming out of the mouth of a conservative.

 

well that means nothing coming from a liberal

 

This strikes me as a pretty close call.

It is certainly true that the SCOTUS typically allows religious groups significant latitude when their beliefs run headlong into states' or cities' local statutes, unless the act in question is utterly repellent to most Americans (e.g. human sacrifice).

Still, I remain rather doubtful that the SCOTUS of the 1890s--the same SCOTUS that upheld contemporary standards with its (unfortunate) ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson--would have simply ignored those standards by declaring polygamy to be no big deal...

Oh, I have made plenty. And most tended to make me look, well, rather ignorant.

This one did not have that particular effect; it was just funny...

This necessarily implies a fealty to "Living Constitution" theory; which I consider wholly objectionable.

I would much prefer to throw in my lot with the originalists...

Are you also pro-polyandry? Or is it just a one-way thing with you?

How might it be possible to ensure that "nobody under the age of eighteen is allowed to enter a marriage" if "the entire institution of marriage were removed from government recognition"?

 

Well, the process of incorporation of the Bill of Rights did not start until 1925 with Gitlow v. New York, and even in Cruikshank the First and Second Amendments were held as only applicable to Federal law. I'll have to do some digging, but the process of incorporation, being that it started when it did, may have been the doing of Justices Holmes and Brandeis, two of the wisest men to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

I, myself, am an originalist and believe we should be on our fourth or fifth Constitution by now. We should have had a new one in the 1820s, in the 1870s, and in the 1950s. It is only because of the breadth of the reading of the Constitution that it is so widely interpreted. I believe, in this respect, we have failed our Founding Fathers somewhat.

If one wife wants five husbands, let her. Who am I to tell another person that they cannot do whatever they want with as many consenting adults as they see fit?

Government can recognize a marriage, they cannot, however, provide benefits for those in such an institution. I misspoke there.

 

All are equal right up to the point they are convicted of a crime where upon a great many rights become subject to the whims of the state...

 

First, Romney is pro choice...........depending on which day you ask him and which audience he is talking to. So he must be liberal, huh?

Obama kept the tax cuts for the rich, we didn't get single payer healthcare, wars were continued, government has gotten smaller, etc. etc.

And redistribution of wealth to the wealthy( a republican idea) must be liberal in its core since its redistribution of wealth, huh???? Its just redistribution in the opposite direction, huh? Or are the republican politicians that are pushing for redistribution really just liberals in sheeps clothing?

Obama's not that far to the left. He's more of a centrist.

A true liberal would have stopped the wars, got us single payer healthcare, got rid of tax cuts for the rich, etc.

 

I'm surprised you didn't bring up a man, tennis ball, and a duck-billed platypus. Those examples have equal validity to your bizarre and absurd fantasy world. But your post used one word that explains your position - sick. Gay sex is "icky" and therefore you would deny legal privileges because a guy puts his penis in an icky place.

Define the legal arrangement using any words you want. I really don't give a s(*)(*)t what your definition of marriage is, or even the state for that matter. One will always be able to find a church to "marry" two people, regardless of gender. What IS important are the legal rights that are associated with said unions. One that bigots who hate icky stuff can't deny to another American citizen.

 

We can agree on that. Let the churches decide what they will define as a "marriage." There will be no problem for any same sex couple finding a church that will marry them. Then everybody's happy.

Now, that does not solve the problem of legal rights associated with that marriage, does it?

 

The fact that Obama has been unable to accomplish, as of yet, all that he would like is largely a factor of the republicans regaining control of the house in 2010. The fact that he has been unable to effectively deal with that recalcitrant reality, does not in anyway make him a centrist. He wants all the same things you do he just quite can't yet get there from here though he has recently stated that he is going to try, if he does not get his way, to do so by executive order. A more leftist line of attack has never been invented.

 

I think I would prefer a couple of our current justices: Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Why would you wish to replace the entire Constitution, instead of simply adopting amendments to it, as the Founders intended?

Well, this does, at least, have the virtue of logical consistency...

 

Here is a suggestion: Why don't we quit referring to these unions as "marriages"--which amounts to a tortured use of that word--and refer to them, instead, as precisely what they are: civil unions.

Then let us treat civil unions exactly the same as traditional marriages, for the purpose of administering those benefits.

Fair enough?

 

That's absolutely fine with me. Marriage is merely another word as far as I'm concerned. In this case, one that has been used to muddy the waters of civil rights

 

i dont care about romney

it doesnt matter if obama kept tax cuts for the rich he still believes in redistribution. a massive expansion of government run healthcare isnt a sign of the government getting smaller by any stretch of the imagination.

republican policies want to cut taxes not raise them, thats the opposite of redistribution

obama is far left he just cant get away with it so his actions dont reflect his beliefs.

 

Without Holmes and Brandeis, a lot of precedents that expanded rights for all Americans would not have been.

I've posted a thread about it a few months back. The flaws in the Constitution run way too deep to be rectified by the amendment process. Much of the original Seven Articles would have to be replaced, and when that happens, we might as well just start over with a whole new document with the principles from our previous Constitutions and the Declaration of Independence. I don't want to "Alabama" our Constitution.

It helps that I use logic when I decide my stance on an issue. Some in this country don't use logic or just plain don't decide their stance for themselves.

Nope. Civil Unions can be treated substantially different from marriage. Few states that grant civil unions give them all the protections offered to married couples. Thus, it's separate and unequal and violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. It's for that reason, I call them Plessy Unions.

 

Pretending that you are in session, by going in every few hours and banging a gavel, doesn't really mean you are in session...............therefore, not voting on appointees and making the president get things done via an executive order...........isn't a liberal idea.

 

Says who and that isn't what I'm talking about anyway...