AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

On the other hand, the Democrat Party is picking up the youth vote, the minority vote (gays, black, hispanic), independent vote, and the moderates who are disenchanted with the "conservative movement."

NOTE: One thing is for certain: we cannot allow the liberals and/or their talking heads and pundits define for us what Modern American Conservatism is.

Foxfyre wrote:

NOTE: One thing is for certain: we cannot allow the liberals and/or their talking heads and pundits define for us what Modern American Conservatism is.

After 112 pages most will know that by now.


Who is "we" here, by the way? A pluralis majestatis?

It is discrimination when only certain people are allowed to qualify. But so long as anybody is eligible to become qualified for the license, and the exact same reasonable criteria applies to all, it is not discrimination.

Debra Law wrote:

Fundmental rights are defined as those rights that are implicit in our concepts of "ordered" liberty. Marriage has never been, nor will it ever be, a prerequisite for procreation.

No, but it used to be considered a prerequisite for ordered procreation; it isn't anymore. Procreation outside marriage used to be considered disorderly; it isn't anymore -- not in America anyway. Hence my question: what difference does this make to marriage being a fundamental civil right?

Debra Law's RESPONSE: The ability to procreate outside of marriage makes no difference to the status of marriage as a fundamental civil right. Countless numbers of legal benefits and duties are contingent upon marital status. Additionally, the pursuit of happiness is also a fundamental liberty interest. Most people find happiness and security by entering a marriage with the person whom they love and choose to spend their life. (That happiness may be fleeting for some couples, but they may choose to live with that unhappiness, or try to fix it, or sue for divorce wherein a court will decide matters of property division, child custody, and support.)

My fiance and I lived together for many years before we finally applied for a marriage license and made our relationship "official" two years ago. We both find great comfort, security, and happiness in our marriage. Society affords our marital relationship the dignity and respect that it deserves. Although we can't have children, my husband and I are an official "family" and we enjoy all the rights, benefits, duties, and responsibilities that the law bestows upon us. The fact that gay people are allowed to marry each other, and enjoy the same rights and duties that my husband and I enjoy, does not harm my marriage at all.

Debra Law wrote:

The right to marry is a fundamental civil right.

So, just to be clear: If states were to abolish marriage altogether, if they stopped issuing marriage licenses to anyone, would you have still have a constitutional problem? Although, by the logic of your argument, you should no longer have an equal protection problem, you should still have a substantive due process problem. After all, if the liberty to marry is a fundamental right, wholesale abolition would deprive couples of liberty without due process of the law, which is unconstitutional.

Do I understand you correctly?

Debra Law's RESPONSE: Yes. I would still have a constitutional problem if the state banned marriage altogether. The language set forth in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), is applicable to this discussion:

"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed ... without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect."

NOTE: One thing is for certain: we cannot allow the liberals and/or their talking heads and pundits define for us what Modern American Conservatism is.

Foxfyre wrote:

NOTE: One thing is for certain: we cannot allow the liberals and/or their talking heads and pundits define for us what Modern American Conservatism is.

Oh, but we will define it for you just like you have tried to turn liberalism into a dirty word for the last half century. We will educate all those whom you seek to convert to your evil ways and inform them what "conservatism" really means! Turnabout is fair play. Isn't it?

Debra Law wrote:

On the other hand, the Democrat Party is picking up the youth vote, the minority vote (gays, black, hispanic), independent vote, and the moderates who are disenchanted with the "conservative movement."

Personally, I think libertarians should be pretty low-hanging fruit for the Democratic party these days. Legalize medical marijuana, ease up on gambling and prostitution, experiment with school vouchers a little, and I don't see what holds libertarians under the Republican tent.

Deb, Thomas et al

There are two, I think, very astute analyses here, from Brooks and Kilgore. Let me know what you think.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/13/the_anatomy_of_conservative_se/

Aside from self-deception about the popularity of their core ideology, today's conservatives seem to be deceiving themselves as well about how to deal with Democrats in a way that maintains some credibility.

One is required in many parts of the USA to possess a state or municipal government granted license to:
practice medicine; . . .
...

Not everyone qualifies under the law to be granted each of these licences, and is in that respect discriminated against..

foxfyre wrote:

It is discrimination when only certain people are allowed to qualify. But so long as anybody is eligible to become qualified for the license, and the exact same reasonable criteria applies to all, it is not discrimination.

What is it when certain people are allowed to try and qualify, but are unable to qualify for one reason or another?
TWO EXAMPLES:
(1) You are allowed to try and qualify to be a licensed professional engineer, but are unable to qualify because you lack the means to pass the required exam.
(2) You are allowed to try and qualify to marry, but are unable to because the person you seek to be qualified to marry is not a different sex than you.

Debra Law wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

NOTE: One thing is for certain: we cannot allow the liberals and/or their talking heads and pundits define for us what Modern American Conservatism is.

Oh, but we will define it for you just like you have tried to turn liberalism into a dirty word for the last half century. We will educate all those whom you seek to convert to your evil ways and inform them what "conservatism" really means! Turnabout is fair play. Isn't it?

I haven't tried to turn liberalism into a dirty word for a half century or a half day. You just can't resist trying to tell me what I think, believe, do, say, or try without having anything to back that up can you?

I really REALLY would like for at least one of you liberals to actually define conservatism as you see it though. I have asked lots and lots of times on this thread and no liberal has been brave enough to do that. Most just want to insult those of us attempting to define conservatism and conservative values.

Want to take a shot?

HOW ABOUT THIS FOR THE DEFINITION OF A MODERN CONSERVATIVE?

A modern conservative is a person dedicated to the preservation and application of the principle that all humans are endowed by God with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and will continue to be endowed with those rights they have not unlawfully denied other humans.