I guess my position is that, on the moral issues (and believe me, I’m about as “conservative” and right wing as you can get), they were traditionally left to the states for the first several hundred years. The states “could” legislate morality,(to me, that’s really what laws are, you are legislating what that group of people believes are right and wrong) and did, but they gave the option of many little “mini-countries” with their own unique personalities, all united under the banner of THESE United STATES. I am very pro-life, and one place I would hedge that opinion is on abortion (as I believe the Declaration of Independence, as well as all moral law gives the right to life), but at the very least, ROE v. Wade should be thrown out and let it go back to the states to decide, as it was for 200 years.
This way, you can have more “liberal” minded people who would rather regulate business like crazy, can live in certain states if that’s what they want, to save the spotted tree toad or something, but trading their extreme environmental laws for seeing a lot of their business leave. If that’s what they want for their state, then fine. Let them legislate that at the state level. Then you can have conservative states in a more free, pro business environment, not dictated to by these oppressive federal agencies. As long as the free-er states don’t have to bail out the anti-business states when they get into debt.If a state votes and amendment to keep gay marriage illegal, the Federal Government has no business overturning that.
The states work together on the very few areas where the constitution gave the federal government limited authority, like protection of the entire country from outside invaders, and other than that, our country is more of a quilt of different little countries with very different personalities, some more maybe some very free market in business but with traditional moral values kept in state laws, some more libertarian, some more “liberal”, all knit together by the constitution, with each state only limited by the constititution. Rather than one big baggy one-size-fits-all suffocating tarp to strangle every difference between the states. It would allow people different options on where to live that best fits their personalities without imposing that on the entire country, and would also be a little test tube where people could look around and see on a smaller, more manageable level, the results of certain policies.
Yes, abortion is an evil and the nation that facilitates and generates it in its government is abandoning God. But Roe v Wade being overturned would be a major step in the right direction. It would be good enough for me.
It's why Romney was out -- that and Romney's wholesale embrace of foisting upon young people acceptance of open homosexuality. To be responsible for pointedly creating for kids and young adults, open avenues of temptation to grievous sin and misery of abortion and sexual perversion -- that's anti American. Using taxpayer moneys to feed it is insult on injury.
The problem with your idea is that now leftists are rabid-mad-dog aggressive and will never let one state or one county or one city or hospital or anything or anyone alone. Never. The voters in CA voted against fag marriage three times.
So the leftists pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed and what do we get? Judicial activism at its very worst.
We need people and a party that will fight to the death the lefists and promote conservative values with courage. Not laissez faire libertarianism (actually libertarians are social leftists) because laissez faire means the leftists WIN BIG.