1 I agree, smaller government is not the first principle of conservatism, it's more a result of properly applied conservatism.

2 Well said, Gabe.  I had thought about posting on this.  I think for most of us limited government is a first principle, but not the only one.

Besides the moral issues, national security is another example that conservatives differ from libertarians on.  If we went solely by a limited government calculus, we wouldn't support NSA wiretaps and things like that.   But most of us do, and I'll bet even Captain Ed does. 

Even though that's an increase in the size and power of government.

3 Gabriel, I think your use of the DOMA omits that it was a law passed in reaction to various court decisions that directly overturned the will of the people. Conservatives do want issues like the status of marriage left to the states; however, too often they see overwhelmingly-approved laws overturned by judges who prefer to create the law for themselves. See the recent decision in California for a prime example. Conservatives have been forced to move the battle into Congress because, right now, that's the only place that the will of the people can be made largely proof from the overriding will of a handful of judges in each state. We would love to fight the battle state by state, in keeping with the first principle of limited government. Unfortunately, that option has pretty much been taken away from us. So we battle on that issue, and others, in the only place we can battle until such time as we are assured that activist judges won't reverse democracy.

4 I should also say that limited government does matter quite a lot. It is the first principle. Unfortunately, both sides aren't playing on the same field. It's become necessary to defeat the big government folks on their ground before we can move it to the ground where the fights should be fought.

5 The First Principle of Conservatism is  "We can't change Human Nature, and we will fuck up everything if we try."

6

I agree that the family has not been protected as it should be. That would be my first principle, since a nation is composed of families. In spite of much talk of different kinds of families, the nation reproduces and nurtures children to the optimum extent through two-parent, mother and father families. Damage to the family is damage to the building blocks of the nation.

Other themes arise out of the needs of the people. Those needs will be minimalized when the welfare of the family is optimized.

7

That pretty much sums up why I view my relationship with conservatives as an alliance of convenience.  I think a strong federalist approach where states are free to determine their own laws (within the framework of the federal constitution) is a good thing.  While there may not be 57 versions of what's right, there very well could be more than 1 version of what's right, and I'd like states (ie: the voters of those states) to have the ability to pursue different ways and means of success.  A perfect example is the abortion issue.  I vehemently oppose RvW, but I don't want to put in its opposite where abortion is illegal at the federal level.  I want the states to decide, and thus, the people of that state to decide.  And if a state's policies lead to failure, that state should be allowed to fail.  If a state's policies lead to success, that state should be allowed to succeed.  And if there's anything to social darwinism, such a system will allow us to get better and better results as bad policies fail and good policies succeed. 

That's in my ideal world, of course. 

8

I love this blog but find this article to be disturbing from a group of conservatives.  As a conservative myself, I know that I want the states to be way more involved than they are now because, as the founding fathers knew, state and local representatives are extremely more accessible to all voters.  This is why the founding fathers wrote and included the 10th Amendment saying:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10

The reason that people would protest is because they do not understand the concept of limited government.  In fact, if a conservative ran on this stand he/she could be extremely effective because if limited government was ever inacted they could point to the fact there would be more money for specific state and local projects that are needed.  This would occur because if the majority of the tax money collected know went to my state rather than somewhere else (For example, 25% of the federal gas tax goes to the subways in NY, public transportation in SF, and transportation in Boston, I live in NC and use none of the above EVER) and that representative could say we would be more properous as a state.

If I dont want gay marriage in my state then I would 1) elect a politician that portrayed my beliefs or 2) move to a state that represents my belief.  The government has no business of saying gay marriage is legal or illegal or moral or immoral, its not in the Constitution.  If all of our politicians would read, think about and comprehend the Constitution we would not have issues like we do, i.e. Alaska wants to drill for oil but the Federal Government says that they cant, this is a state issue and justified by the 10th Amendment but no politician uses this arguement, instead they say blah blah blah...The citizens of Alaska voted for the Governor and she says drill...according to the Constitution the federal government has no role. 

If we would get back to the Constitution as a guiding principle then we would be better off as a whole.  Obama says he is a Constitutional scholar but proposes massive spending programs that have no basis in our governmental guidelines.  Unfortunately, the Constitution is a piece of paper that politicians of all stripes use as a mouthpiece with little understanding or caring of the true meaning and dont even ask about the judges at all levels. 

To all Americans, read the Constitution, Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers prior to November in order to make a better decision. 

9

P.S.  I agree that this isnt the only conservative principle but it dwarfs all other principles.  Wiretapping and national security issues would be justified under the protection of the greater commonwealth, similar to the concept of the military, police and firefighters. 

I still love the blog and keep up the great work!!! 

10 To all Americans, read the Constitution, Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers prior to November in order to make a better decision.

What are those? Are those some new bands or something? Anyway, I'm voting for Obama, because he says he'll give me free money.

11 Correct, a more proper statement of the conservative first principle - in the political and governmental realm - would be "adhere to the US constitution as written and intended by its authors." Justice, Liberty, Ethics, and Honor for the good of the past with a constant striving for the good of the future are the conservative principles. Too many people are libertarians or just small government advocates and call themselves conservatives. That's like saying you're a NASCAR fan because you like tires.

12 I wanted to leave a comment at Hot Air but one cannot comment unless one registers and registration is closed. Small government is not, to my mind, really a first (or any) principle of conservatism, per se, but of libertarianism. The problem, it seems to me, is that there is no one conservatism but several and it is a first principle of conservatives of a libertarian bent, who have read F. A. Hayek (who appended to The Constitution of Liberty an essay on why he was not a conservative) and M. Friedman and say "Amen!" But conservatives being persuaded by libertarian socio-economic arguments in favor of small government does not exhaust the constellation of beliefs of the various kinds of conservatism in America today.

It seems to me that the first principle of conservatism is the impulse to conserve something. The variations on what one hopes to conserve helps explain the various strains of conservatism. Some want to conserve traditional values, often religious values, against the onslaught of godless liberals wishing to normalize alternate lifestyles as just one more thread in the tapestry of our pluralistic world. Some of which have no problem enlisting the force of the state to help conserve said values and oppose the alternative. These conservatives' first principle does not appear to be smaller government the better to maximize personal liberty. It appears to be that their way is the right way and any other way must be opposed using governmental machinery to preserve their way.

For me, the first principle of conservatism is that, although change is necessary, large, wholesale change is to be resisted. Change should be gradual, minimalist, under localized control, and should grow out of what is tried and true rather than all of a sudden, radical, under central control and a complete departure from the status quo. What makes one a conservative is a preference for the former manner of change. What makes one a liberal/progressive is a preference for the latter.

George W. Bush, after all, is a species of conservative but not a small government conservative.

13

Gabe, is this post a joke?  You are equating Huckabee's desire to have a DOMA and RTLA as equivalent to what conservatism should be? 

And this passage puzzles me very much with its contention that conservatives desire future government programs to be responsive to marital status:

conservatives are much more likely to insist that federal law recognize married couples for the purposes of things like taxes, federal employment benefits, Social Security, and welfare eligibility. And as further programs are announced, conservatives want them to be responsive to the the marital status of participants.

Conservatives generally oppose the creation of new entitlement programs whether they are responsive to marital status or not, right?  Are you saying that conservatives should welcome expansion of the federal government's power and size as long as such expansion is used to achieve social conservative goals like a Federal ban on abortion or gay marriage?  Or even worse, that conservatives should simply not oppose new entitlement programs if they don't threaten to include gay partnerships or families as beneficiaries of the entitlement?

 

 

 

14 I think Ed has his point, that small government is more ideal than large to a conservative. A lot of different threads recently have dealth with social conservatism and/or fiscal conservatism. So Ed's for the fiscal conservatism. I'm for lower taxes and less government interference in my private life. As far as marriage is concerned, so long as the laws don't change one way or the other, it stays on the books as it always did. Once you open a topic for debate on the house or senate floor, you just get more government, even if you wanted less. You also open the floodgates for gay rights to pre-empt traditional families. Quit funding gay benefits. Don't ask, don't tell worked as the most practical protocol for some time in the military. But passing legislation requiring traditional people to pay benefits for a gay's partner via tax dollars or business/corporate expense is pushing the envelope too far, forcing morality to be amoral. I would object also to paying for anyone's abortion via my tax dollars. If any new legislation is introduced, let it be to rescind benefits from those who will not work to receive those benefits, and absolutely abstain from government bail-outs of businesses all together. As far as legislating morality, the only thing that gets legislated is fascism. If the government wants the church separate from the state, then the government must abstain from legislating morality. Tit for tat.

15 It's been striking me more and more in recent years that the whole idea that "conservative = less government" is a rather odd formulation. "More cops" is not a less government solution. A bigger, better equipped, more badass military isn't less government. Beefed up intelligence services aren't less government. Laws against drug use aren't less government. So what the hell is less government?

Although other conservative icons were of course fans of a more "leave the market alone for itself" approach, like Calvin Coolidge, others never were; Teddy Roosevelt was if anything a "more government please" conservative. It seems that Reagan was the first and only President to seriously want less government, but in reality only wanted less stringent regulations on business, especially in the area of price controls, and he won that argument. But he's the only President before or since, except maybe Coolidge, who actually had such a philosophy.

It strikes me that conservatives seem to have talked themselves into believing they want less government than they really do.

I say that as someone who no longer sees himself as conservative, although I'm not hostile to conservatism. The "less government" mantra no longer particularly appeals to me, and that's why. It used to be that conservatives were hugely concerned with trusts and large corporations and inherited wealth and large pools of wealth in concentrated small numbers of hands, and to intuitively grasp that this was inherently dangerous. I'm not sure when that thinking changed, but I'd have to guess it was mostly around 1980 and Reagan's election.

16 ...and I guess I should add, I'm no longer convinced that Reagan's arguments of almost 30 years ago still really apply.

But then again I'm not really a conservative anymore, so, take my own thoughts with whatever grain of salt you like.

Still, it bears thinking on: do you *really* want less government in all areas? Or just in some areas?

17 So what the hell is less government?

Dean,
Personally I think the proper formulation is less government in areas where it doesn't belong or in a broader sense, conservatism is about the proper relationship between people and the government.

Conservatives shouldn't be against government per se but against government involvement in areas where it doesn't belong.

BTW- I am not asking this in a smart ass way, but who the hell thinks Teddy Roosevelt is a conservative? He certainly wasn't in the modern (Goldwater/Reagan) sense. I think in today's terms he'd be a national greatness conservative but the jury is out on how "conservative" they (as represented by Bill Kristol/Michael Gerson/David Brooks) really are.

18 Still, it bears thinking on: do you *really* want less government in all areas? Or just in some areas?

Yes. Conservatives have no trouble insisting on prohibiting or reducing federal government interference...in areas of traditional state control. The key there, though, is the tradition. In areas where the federal government has traditionally been given wide latitude, conservatives usually have no argument continuing that state of affairs.

And this passage puzzles me very much with its contention that conservatives desire future government programs to be responsive to marital status:

funky, I'm saying that when Congress creates a new program or agency in which the marital status of participants is important, they want the federal government to be able to recognize valid state marriages. New programs or agencies could include loan programs, new taxes, survivor benefits, etc.

For example, say Congress creates a new tax credit for stay-at-home-moms who have less than $30k in annual income. I think conservatives would have no problem saying that marital status (and the spouse's income) is important to determining eligibility for that tax credit and that the federal government should therefore be able to recognize when an individual who has applied is married.

19

The "leave gay marrige to the states" argument is a knard.

Gay marrige wouln't even be an issue if radicalized homosexuals hadn't been forcing the notion on the rest of us through the courts.  Gay marrige hasn't been approved by a single state legislature, and it is doubtful that it ever would be.  Even here in California, the electorate has overwhelmingly rejected it on several occasions - this despite the San Diego Union Tribune's declaration via push-poll that a slim majority (well within the margin of error) now (Finally!) approves. 

Bullshit.

Doesn't the equal protection clause demand that a couple married in one state be recognized as being married in any other?  Or can I effectively divorce my wife by, say, moving to Texas?  If a state refuses to recognize a homosexual "marrige" performed in California, can California then refuse to recognize hetrosexual marriges performed in Maryland in turn?

Rush often points out that "Words Mean Things".

Gay marrige is an issue, even with "less-government" conservatives, because it represents a tyrany of an elite minority - in this case homosexual activists and liberal judges - over the will of the majority of people: EXACTLY the same situation that lead our founders to rebell against the will of the British crown. Can there be a more "conservative" issue than opposing the assertion of a self-appointed minority ruling class that it can redefine words and ideas that have had generally accepted meanings for hundreds, if not thousands, of years?

If we grant them the ability to redefine the concept of marrige, how long before they are able redefine other popular concepts such as "property", "due process", and "freedom"? 

Does anyone doubt that is what they really want to do?

20 The only reason people might think Reagan's arguments would not apply today is that they are ignorant of what these arguments actually were. He wasn't a modern person who heard Rush Limbaugh 8 times and thinks he's a conservative, he didn't just say 'we need to cut government" he wanted it to be within constitutional and proper boundaries. That's why he got congress to increase military spending while cutting social spending: the goal is not smaller government, it is proper government, which at this point is much, much smaller. That is a result, not a goal of conservatism.

21 First, you try to box Ed's entire argument into the one example he provided and refused to see the broader context. Marriage, we get it you want the government to control it, regulate it, tax it or provide benefits for those that participate. Second, you provide a definition of conservatism that seems soley your own. You make sweeping statements about what most conservatives want and don't want without even considering that you are wrong. Third, you separate conservatives from libertarians as if either has a set definition. I know many libertarians (being one) that consider themselves more conservative than most. Finally, this whole post just had an arrogance to it that set me off.

22 you separate conservatives from libertarians as if either has a set definition.

They do. Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, without the overarching philosophical basis for conservatism. Libertarians are, in essence, people who want the government to leave them alone to do whatever they care to - and it's almost always based around a personal choice in life that they enjoy but is generally frowned upon or legally questionable. Libertarianism is about the self and freedom from the government.

Conservatives are socially and fiscally conservative, with an overarching philosophy I and others have detailed above. The package is a whole, you can't cherry pick parts out and keep the philosophy, you end up as someone else. Conservatism is about an objective, absolute ideology that controls and informs decisions about life and government, not the self.

What we don't have a term for is Huckabee or Bush: socially conservative, fiscally liberal.

23  Hongqi, I'm sorry you found it arrogant. I just didn't know how else to illustrate my disagreement with Ed.

24 The first principle of conservatism is, do not talk about conservatism. The second principle of conservatism is, do not talk about conservatism!

25 Yes and no, right now, small gov't isn't on the list of priorities for conservatives right now, but it is where we need to go.  We have to convince social conservatives that Morality Policing is asking for trouble, and they're opening themselves to attack by leftist Nanny Staters.

As for the size of government, the goal has to be to break socialist domestic programs and lower, better taxes.  Allow families, churches, charities and communities to help those in need.  This would free up our economy and resources for growth, and I think bring some stability, which would probably lessen the strain on prisons and need for police.  Obviously our military needs strong funding, but over time, it'll be a smaller chunk of our budget than it is now as the economy grows.

But can't stop at size of government, we have to look at quality, and I would measure quality by the strength of our personal liberties.

26 and it's almost always based around a personal choice in life that they enjoy but is generally frowned upon or legally questionable. You mean the devil worshiping and pot smoking stuff? Yeah, that pretty much defines the limits of thought inside the party. We try to hide it with ranting about personal liberty but you saw through that little charade.

27 Gabe, Why pick a fight with Ed? He just seemed to be saying that one of the core tenants of being a conservative should be limited government. You couldn't find any other moronic crap on the internet to disagree with?

28 Yes and no, right now, small gov't isn't on the list of priorities for conservatives right now, but it is where we need to go. We have to convince social conservatives that Morality Policing is asking for trouble, and they're opening themselves to attack by leftist Nanny Staters.

See, I'd argue that people who want the government to enforce a certain view of morality aren't conservative at all either.

29

We will never see limited government. The bastards get elected, then spend the rest of their careers getting re-elected. Plus, they re-write the rules once they get there to give themselves more power and exempt themselves from laws they pass to fuck with the rest of us.

Term limits? It'll never pass. Would you vote to sunset YOUR cushy job?

No, 'the grand experiment' has morphed into a monster. We should kill it and start over.

 

30 And the first order of business would be term limiting Supreme Court justices. And then pie for everyone.

31

#19

WTF is a 'knard'?

32 Along came... I believe he meant canard which is another term for red herring or ruse.

33

I disagree that libertarians are by definition socially liberal.  I consider "conservative" social principles to be the best way to live my life.  I just don't want the government telling me that's how I have to live. 

Of course, if you're talking Libertarian as in the current political party, I'd have to agree that they certainly seem to use a bunch of fluffy rhetoric about liberty of the individual to pad their core principle of legalized drugs. 

And I also disagree that small (limited) government is necessarily a weak government.  Government should be strong in the areas it is constitutionally authorized to be strong, the military being one of those areas.  Funding/subsidizing art and corn?  Not so much.

34 Hmmmm.

@ Christopher Taylor

"I agree, smaller government is not the first principle of conservatism, it's more a result of properly applied conservatism. "

Yeah I can definitely agree with this.

35

I thought the first principle of conservatism is a deep desire to kick idiot socialist utopianists and other forms of intellectual inbred eurotard elitist wannabees in their 'nads.

There's not much in modern history that's more murderous, destructive and abusive than brain dead socialist utopianists.

Heck, even the jihadi scum haven't come close to the body count stacked up in the last century by philosophical degeneracies that've flowed out of europe on a river of blood.

36 I disagree that libertarians are by definition socially liberal. I consider "conservative" social principles to be the best way to live my life. I just don't want the government telling me that's how I have to live. Well said! I think most libertarians feel this way and have many disagreements with the "official" party line.

37 I disagree that libertarians are by definition socially liberal.

Actually, what it sounds like is that you disagree that conservatism is opposed to federal government intrusion into your life in social areas.

38

More than that, conservatives are not content to let marriage be a decision of the states. The federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from "treat[ing] same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states" passed with the support of every Republican in the Senate.

...Which is one of the reasons why TRUE conservatives are so incredibly annoyed with the Republicans in Congress.  The DOMA is not only a foolish concept, it's antithetical to the spirit and purpose of the Constitution.

The first principle of conservatism is indeed limited government, which is -- lest we all forget and apparently some of us have -- why the Consitution was written in the first place.

We're the party of the Constitution, remember?  And the Constituion exists to place limits on how far the government can stick its figurative nose into our business.  It sure as Aitch doesn't exist as a tool to impose silly rules about  flag burning and marital definitions.

Marriage should be defined by the states.  Leave it there.  The second principle o' conservatism, after all, is state rights. Right?

And if some local judge skips by and decides to go against the will of the people with some discombobulated legal penumbra, then that judge needs to be called out as the liberal POS he is and get The Boot.  That would be the proper conservative response, not trying to one-up him with a federal amendment.  We need to stop treating judges as untouchable, especially judges who apparently can't read.

And to clarify: limited government doesn't mean NO government.  Sure, true conservatives want a large military.  Care to know why?  You may want to check out Article I, Section VIII.  There are areas where the Consitution recognizes the importance of applied government.  National protection?  Yes.  Abortion?  No.

Hence, we have stumbled upon the primary gripe twixt true cons and social cons.  True cons consider certain social hot buttons to be the province of the states while social cons think the Constitution should be altered to meet their agenda.  I will personally vote to ban abortion and the re-defining of marriage in my state.  I will never vote for a Constitutional amendment to do the same.  And flag burning?  Good grief, physicians, please do consider the familiarity of this phrase; "you don't have the right to not be offended."  Regardless, the whole point is the difference between federal responsibility and state responsibility...something else the Constitution has a few words on.

As for Libertarians, they define their politics with a phrase straight out of Wicca:
"An' ye harm none, do what ye will."  They forget that we all do have to accept certain legal limits on personal behavior in order to maintain a functioning society.  I don't believe giving my kids the ability to purchase porn and Panama Red at the local Get-N-Go -- and surely not with fiat money! -- is what this country is about.

But I digress.  And I should stay off some topics because I almost said Columbian Red, which is a boa constrictor.  So much for my knowledge of drugs.

In conclusion, I don't read Ed Morrissey's site on a regular basis but he's always impressed me as a pretty smart guy.  And, in this regard, it would do the RNC some good if they paid more than just a little attention to what he has to say.

39 Dean:
Still, it bears thinking on: do you *really* want less government in all areas? Or just in some areas?

Well, of course we don't want less government in *all* areas.  People who want less government in *all* areas are called "anarchists."  But then again, neither do liberals/progressives (?) want more government in *all* areas.  The political parties are not fairly represented by the bumper stickers of their opposition.

But as a bedrock proposition, "Less Government" is not a bad starting point for conservatives.  Dean and Gabriel, you should both read Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative."  In my opinion, that book reads like a primer on conservative thought: morality, self-reliance, and how those are aided by smaller government (both in the "less regulation of markets" sense, and in the "less federal government and more local government" sense).  In fact, if we can figure out a way to do it, I'd be willing to buy you guys a copy from Amazon.  You can post reviews of the book if you want.

Conservatives tend to believe in freedom.  We believe in social Darwinism.  We believe that governments are inherently inefficient.  But if there are areas that the government acts more efficiently, then the government should be allowed to act in those areas.  We're not always opposed to government, but we work from the starting point that people are better than governments.

It used to be that conservatives were hugely concerned with trusts and large corporations and inherited wealth and large pools of wealth in concentrated small numbers of hands, and to intuitively grasp that this was inherently dangerous.

I don't think I agree with this.  Could you give some examples?  Conservatives were wary of a large amount of *power* concentrated in a small number of hands (both in the government and in industry and trust-busting), but  to my knowledge conservatives have never had an affection for wealth redistribution.

40

Ed Morrissey has been publicly lusting after the warm, wrinkly skin of John McCain's cock for a year now, and this is just another shameful display.

 I disregard anything he says about Conservatives or Conservativsm for the same reasons I do anything Nancy Pelosi or Al Franken says about Conservatives or Conservativsm.

41 The author is clearly confusing conservatism (see Conscience of a Conservative, or Ronald Reagan's diaries, both of which directly contradict the thesis) with Daddy Staters, and libertarianism, which has always been a core faction of the coalition, with Libertarians. As for these amendments, they are nothing more than pandering. They have less chance of ratification than the ERA did, and every politician knows it. Everybody who is supporting them is being punked.

And all of you who are spooked by "what the homo-sek-shuls REALLY want to do!" really need to take your meds. Paranoia isn't going to get you anywhere but locked up.

42 A quick clarification: The DOMA is not the same thing as the FMA. The former is the Defense of Marriage Act, which is very brief and has only two parts:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The latter is the Federal Marriage Amendment, which is a proposed amendment which defines marriage as one man, one woman for all of the united states as a constitutional amendment.

The first I don't have a problem with, it simply defines how the federal government legally deals with faux marriages. The second is an amendment to the constitution which has all the problems people have stated above.

43 " What we don't have a term for is Huckabee or Bush: socially conservative, fiscally liberal."

Right-wing populists works.  Europeans would call them Christian Socialists, which also works.

44 The Comish (sic) writes:

Conservatives tend to believe in freedom. We believe in social Darwinism. We believe that governments are inherently inefficient. But if there are areas that the government acts more efficiently, then the government should be allowed to act in those areas. We're not always opposed to government, but we work from the starting point that people are better than governments.

This is why I wrote above that limited government is an important principle of conservative governance, but not the most important one. It gives way to issues of national concern, like relations between the states or, as Dean pointed out, national security.

And if you're really serious about the book, there's a link to my Amazon wishlist at my other site.

45 rightwingprof, the FMA may--because there's no chance it will ever pass--be "pandering." But, that doesn't mean that its conservative proponents don't actually support it.

46 Ed's almost right. Conservative first principles stress limiting the role of government to the exercise of its traditional powers through the established process. This means that the structural mechanisms put in place should be robust; e.g. sep. of powers at the fed level, federalism, etc. Gridlock between the branches is a feature not a bug. Inherent and implicit in this principle is a deep aversion towards (radical) social experimentation, and a recognition that when the federal government, simply because of it's sheer enormity, makes policy, it's likely conducting some form of social experimentation. Most Western Euro countries have federal police, why don't we? Because police powers have traditionally (since our founding) been the province of the state. To a conservative, this reasoning is sufficient. We've always done it this way and it has worked pretty well. We should treat with suspicion those who suggest that great improvements can be obtained but only through radical changes. Of course change(!) can occur, but the more radical the departure from tradition, the greater the requirement that they be democratic in origin, so re: gay marriage, the disagreement is in how these changes are being brought about (judicially, and undemocratically). If the majority of your fellow citizens in your home state voted to legalize it, we at least have the proper recourse of trying to convince our fellow citizens that they're wrong. If we could not, even we conservatives would have to recognize the change as legitimate.

47 I see bbeck and jstopper lecturing us about the constitution, but they are the ones who are most ignorant about it.

Look at what jstopper says:

"If I dont want gay marriage in my state then I would 1) elect a politician that portrayed my beliefs or 2) move to a state that represents my belief.  The government has no business of saying gay marriage is legal or illegal or moral or immoral, its not in the Constitution."

bbeck says,

"Marriage should be defined by the states.  Leave it there."

They are both wrong.  When one state legalizes "gay marriage", other states will be forced to recognize it.  It's in the constitution, it's called the full faith and credit clause.  That means that moving to another state won't save you, and all the state laws and state consitutions banning gay marriage are instant confetti once it they are challenged in court.

If you want to "leave it up to the states", the constitution explicitly forbids you from doing so.  You would have to pass a constitutional amendmend to let each state decide for itself whether to allow gay marriage.  Why?  Because when one state passes gay marriage, they all will have it.

48 Comment #47 cont.

I really should read the post more thoroughly...

First, DOMA is stupid and does not naturally flow from conservative principles. However, it is a logical response to the very unconservative process in which the alteration of a basic institution is being brought about, i.e. judicially.  No state has voted to legalize gay marriage.   Conservatives care about process.  And not the bullshit  "substantive  due process" shit. 

Second, abortion is the exact same thing but doubly crappy.  1) Abortion is not a federal issue.   2) Abortion is not a judicial (much less federal judicial) issue as only the most tortured reading of the constitution would somehow read a right of abortion.  Abortion is a moral and messy line-drawing exercise; precisely the type that states are best equipped to handle.  Roe reached into the states and removed the issue from debate.  This is what's endlessly frustrating to the pro-life folks; they have been denied the traditional means of advocating for their views, namely, convincing your fellow voters that your position is better. 

Now all they can do is make really stupid cheeseball ads. 

49 #48, Village Idiot,

I don't think the FFC clause req. that.  Marriage is a state institution (look at the paperwork) and diff. states have diff. laws re: marriage.  For example, divorce and inheritance laws differ between the states, but if you get divorced in CA but were married in OH, I think assets will still be divided up per CA law. 

I could be wrong though, I got a C- in that shit.

50 "...if you get divorced in CA but were married in OH, I think assets will still be divided up per CA law."

Depends where the assets are, whether there's a prenup (and whether it contains a choice-of-law clause), and about nine billion other factors.  In other words, no, it's not that simple.  Just as with probate, you can have primary and secondary litigation in multiple different jurisdictions over different things.  Especially if you have people who had both significant separate assets before the marriage and then accumulated addition community-property assets in California.  And that's before even throwing in the federal bankruptcy courts.

See generally, Anna Nicole Smith, if anyone thinks any of this stuff is uncomplicated.

51 Village Idiot:
When one state legalizes "gay marriage", other states will be forced to recognize it.  It's in the constitution, it's called the full faith and credit clause.

In action, the Full Faith and Credit Clause is not nearly so encompassing.  States are not required to give full faith and credit to the laws of other states if they conflict with their own public policy.  Since 39 states have laws prohibiting same sex marriages, then any of those 39 states would be well within their rights to refuse to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states, since those laws clearly conflict with their own public policy.

Of course, a liberal judge in any state could ignore the law and try to recognize those same sex marriages by fiat.  But that's no different than recognizing them by Constitutional declaration, like in California or Massachusetts.

52 Gabe:
And if you're really serious about the book,....

Done.  Enjoy.

53 thank you foru anal

54 I’ve been around for quite a lot of time, but finally decided to show my appreciation of your work! throw blankets Thumbs up, and keep it going!Thanks a million and please keep up the delightful work. blanket throw I’m happy !It is simple to see that you are passionate about your writing. Looking forward to future posts. faux fur throw Thanks!Now lets see if I can do something productive with it.

55 PDF Creator et as virtual printer, creates PDF document file, JPEG, PNG, PCX, BMP, TIFF, PS, EPS format from Word, Excel, PowerPoint, image and text files.
PDF to BMP Converter is a windows application to convert pdf to bmp format. With pdf to bitmap software, single or batch processing are allowed and if converting the multiple pages pdf file, one page for one bmp picture.