True conservatism. Gay marriage.

[P@triot]

Briefly. I am very conservative. I am a registered libertarian,(although i do not like Ron Paul because 1.he's a phony 2.I am not an isolationist. 3. he is a racist 4.his foreign policy can only be explained by the fact that he is an anti-semite) I got my conservatism honestly, I was raised by liberals and when i was young i was a registered democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice. When i began debating politics online i did well, because i am very clever, but soon realized that because i didn't actually know anything i was either going to have to stop pretending i did, or go ahead and find out everything there was to know about the subject. I was sure this endeavor would only further solidify my liberal beliefs. I was wrong. I became a conservative as a side-effect of wanting to know the truth.

I am a lifelong atheist. I can not remember ever feeling any other way. I am no longer an anti-religious jerk, as in my youth(not coincidentally when i was also a lib )

Conservatives are WRONG about the issue of gay marriage. It is a departure from our commitment to the constitution and as such, it opens us up to the accusation of being less than genuine and only defending our precious constitution when it suits us. Just like the left does.

The "equal protection" clause of the fourteenth amendment is clear and has been interpreted (an "originalist" interpretation) to mean that all citizens are to be treated as equals in the eyes of the law(govt). As such, it is absolutely unconstitutional for the federal govt to deny two homosexuals the right to marry as long as it is granting that right to heterosexuals. That is all. It is clear and undeniable.

Why do you think gay marriage always wins in court? They can't ALL be activist judges, can they? And why do you think Republicans wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman? Because, as written, the constitution supports gay marriage. That's why.

I will attempt to counter a few of the objections that are sure to be raised.
1.)slippery-slope. No. The equal protection clause would not support polygamy. If the federal govt wants to limit the number of spouses allowed, the constitution would not be violated. No one would be being denied their "civil rights" as the denial would not be based on any identifiable characteristic, they are not being denied based on gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. etc. Nor would it support bestiality or any of the other absurd slippery-slope arguments.

2.)The GLBT agenda. As i said, i am a conservative. I oppose this organization and work to counter their agenda on a daily basis, as do most conservatives.

3.)Special Rights. This is a rare case where the right they are seeking is not a "special right" but the exact same right as their fellow Americans enjoy. If the government was not in the business of sanctioning marriage, there would be no issue here. Which is probably the best answer in the end. However, since that is unlikely to happen, the constitution must be upheld and conservatives need to practice what I preach P) and have the courage and integrity to defend the principle of liberty in a case where it may be offensive to their own personal sensibilities. Do not tell me they can have civil unions with all the same legal rights. Unfortunately for you, they have every right to demand the same thing as heterosexuals have, even in name. They have every right to demand that it not only be the same thing, but also that it be called the same thing. Separate but equal is not equal.

4.)the Sanctity of marriage. that is a joke. I am 40, my wife is 38. We have been married 22 yrs. When my son was born she was 15 and i was 17, we have 3 children now and plan to be married till we die. I have lived my belief in the sanctity of marriage. So until some of you conservatives start suggesting criminal penalties for adultery, divorce, or maybe making separate checking accounts illegal, i don"t want to hear about the sanctity of marriage. Brittany Spears and Madonna have done more to damage the sanctity of marriage than homosexual could ever hope to. So in a world of underwater elvis weddings, this argument needs to be dropped.

Try to imagine the boost to the conservative movement this might bring. At some point, the religious conservatives, who i love and defend, are going to have to agree to let the constitution govern and leave their faith at home. The freedom of Religion is under assault. I will be there to defend it with you. But maybe you should consider our founding and the significance of how our founders handled it. When it came to the Declaration of Independence, a document that was very personal to the men who wrote and signed it, they paced their God prominently. We are a judeo-christian nation in founding. But when it came time for those same men(largely) to write a governing document for our nation, they left their God out. I will be there to dispel the myth of "separation" , to underscore the fact of "shall make no law", but on this matter i feel you religious conservatives are doing the movement a dis-service.


Jeffrey

Great story - but the 14th Amendment does not apply. The federal government does not recognize any marriage. Marriages are recognized at the state level.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There's a right to contract...There is no right to a license -any license- by the very definition of the word "license".

Fool.

The SCOTUS has determined that legal, civil marriage (the license) is a fundamental right on no less than three occasions.

You sign your posts advertising that you are a fool? That's very self aware of you.

There is no right to a license...Ever....Period.

A license is permission granted by a second or third party.

You can find a copy of Black's Law Dictionary and look it up for yourself.

No one said anything about a ‘right’ to a license; there is, however, a right to equal protection of the law, in this case marriage law.

Because there is no rational basis to exclude same-sex couples from a given state’s marriage law, a marriage license is issued based on those criteria, not because the couple has a ‘right’ to a license.

 

[P@triot]

Nice lolberal, nanny-statist, authoritarian central planner answer, comrade.

Nice "fuck everything", "rebel against the man, maaaaaan" anarchy rules answer.

 

[P@triot]

No one said anything about a ‘right’ to a license; there is, however, a right to equal protection of the law, in this case marriage law.

Because there is no rational basis to exclude same-sex couples from a given state’s marriage law, a marriage license is issued based on those criteria, not because the couple has a ‘right’ to a license.

Obviously there is a rational basis to exclude them, because it's being done. It's a state issue, and while some have voted to allow gay marriage, the majority (including radical liberal state California) have voted not to allow it. Deal with it.

If you don't like it, move to one of the states that has voted to allow gay marriages. That's the beauty of state's sovereignty and a small federal government with limited powers. It gives flexibility and allows people to live in communities that align with their beliefs. Maybe you flaming liberals will learn for this and stop pushing for a massive federal communist government with full control over everything...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The "state" is interested in protecting marriage because it is in the state's best interest and society's interest to have stable hetero relationships that produce children that will repeat the cycle.

Having dysfunctional families like single parent families, lesbian and gay families isn't good in the end because many times the children from those situations end up with psychological issues not being raised by both a male and female.

Psychological and sociological studies have shown the male and female family model is superior to any single parent family or some female-female or male-male socalled family model. Taking the roles the father plays with children and the roles the mother plays with children out of the equation typically produces problem children i.e. many liberals.

Nonsense, the bolded in particular.

In Perry supporters of Proposition 8 failed to submit to the court any evidence that children raised by a same-sex couple suffered in any manner; indeed, all the evidence supported the fact that children raised in same-sex homes were just as well adjusted as those raised by opposite-sex couples.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf

 

[Oddball]

The SCOTUS has determined that legal, civil marriage (the license) is a fundamental right on no less than three occasions.

You sign your posts advertising that you are a fool? That's very self aware of you.

There is no right to a license...Ever....Period.

A license is permission granted by a second or third party.

You can find a copy of Black's Law Dictionary and look it up for yourself.

No one said anything about a ‘right’ to a license; there is, however, a right to equal protection of the law, in this case marriage law.

Because there is no rational basis to exclude same-sex couples from a given state’s marriage law, a marriage license is issued based on those criteria, not because the couple has a ‘right’ to a license.

Already been dealt with through your holy case law....A man and woman may obtain a state marriage license, no matter their sexual behavior.

Your notion of what constitutes a "rational basis" is irrelevant and nonwithstanding.

 

[Oddball]

Nice lolberal, nanny-statist, authoritarian central planner answer, comrade.

Nice "fuck everything", "rebel against the man, maaaaaan" anarchy rules answer.

Nice straw man there, shitzoo.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Briefly. I am very conservative. I am a registered libertarian,(although i do not like Ron Paul because 1.he's a phony 2.I am not an isolationist. 3. he is a racist 4.his foreign policy can only be explained by the fact that he is an anti-semite) I got my conservatism honestly, I was raised by liberals and when i was young i was a registered democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice. When i began debating politics online i did well, because i am very clever, but soon realized that because i didn't actually know anything i was either going to have to stop pretending i did, or go ahead and find out everything there was to know about the subject. I was sure this endeavor would only further solidify my liberal beliefs. I was wrong. I became a conservative as a side-effect of wanting to know the truth.

I am a lifelong atheist. I can not remember ever feeling any other way. I am no longer an anti-religious jerk, as in my youth(not coincidentally when i was also a lib )

Conservatives are WRONG about the issue of gay marriage. It is a departure from our commitment to the constitution and as such, it opens us up to the accusation of being less than genuine and only defending our precious constitution when it suits us. Just like the left does.

The "equal protection" clause of the fourteenth amendment is clear and has been interpreted (an "originalist" interpretation) to mean that all citizens are to be treated as equals in the eyes of the law(govt). As such, it is absolutely unconstitutional for the federal govt to deny two homosexuals the right to marry as long as it is granting that right to heterosexuals. That is all. It is clear and undeniable.

Why do you think gay marriage always wins in court? They can't ALL be activist judges, can they? And why do you think Republicans wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman? Because, as written, the constitution supports gay marriage. That's why.

I will attempt to counter a few of the objections that are sure to be raised.
1.)slippery-slope. No. The equal protection clause would not support polygamy. If the federal govt wants to limit the number of spouses allowed, the constitution would not be violated. No one would be being denied their "civil rights" as the denial would not be based on any identifiable characteristic, they are not being denied based on gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. etc. Nor would it support bestiality or any of the other absurd slippery-slope arguments.

2.)The GLBT agenda. As i said, i am a conservative. I oppose this organization and work to counter their agenda on a daily basis, as do most conservatives.

3.)Special Rights. This is a rare case where the right they are seeking is not a "special right" but the exact same right as their fellow Americans enjoy. If the government was not in the business of sanctioning marriage, there would be no issue here. Which is probably the best answer in the end. However, since that is unlikely to happen, the constitution must be upheld and conservatives need to practice what I preach P) and have the courage and integrity to defend the principle of liberty in a case where it may be offensive to their own personal sensibilities. Do not tell me they can have civil unions with all the same legal rights. Unfortunately for you, they have every right to demand the same thing as heterosexuals have, even in name. They have every right to demand that it not only be the same thing, but also that it be called the same thing. Separate but equal is not equal.

4.)the Sanctity of marriage. that is a joke. I am 40, my wife is 38. We have been married 22 yrs. When my son was born she was 15 and i was 17, we have 3 children now and plan to be married till we die. I have lived my belief in the sanctity of marriage. So until some of you conservatives start suggesting criminal penalties for adultery, divorce, or maybe making separate checking accounts illegal, i don"t want to hear about the sanctity of marriage. Brittany Spears and Madonna have done more to damage the sanctity of marriage than homosexual could ever hope to. So in a world of underwater elvis weddings, this argument needs to be dropped.

Try to imagine the boost to the conservative movement this might bring. At some point, the religious conservatives, who i love and defend, are going to have to agree to let the constitution govern and leave their faith at home. The freedom of Religion is under assault. I will be there to defend it with you. But maybe you should consider our founding and the significance of how our founders handled it. When it came to the Declaration of Independence, a document that was very personal to the men who wrote and signed it, they paced their God prominently. We are a judeo-christian nation in founding. But when it came time for those same men(largely) to write a governing document for our nation, they left their God out. I will be there to dispel the myth of "separation" , to underscore the fact of "shall make no law", but on this matter i feel you religious conservatives are doing the movement a dis-service.


Jeffrey

Great story - but the 14th Amendment does not apply. The federal government does not recognize any marriage. Marriages are recognized at the state level.

Wrong again:

Wisconsin statute providing that any resident of that State "having minor issue not in his custody and which he is under obligation to support by any court order or judgment" may not marry without a court approval order, which cannot be granted absent a showing that the support obligation has been met and that children covered by the support order "are not then and are not likely thereafter to become public charges," held to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 383-391.

Since the right to marry is of fundamental importance, e. g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 , and the statutory classification involved here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required. Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 312 , 314. Pp. 383-387.

More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:

The Constitution does not specifically mention freedom to marry, but it is settled that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces more than those freedoms expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights…And the decisions of this Court have made clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties so protected.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[OKTexas]

Are you sure you want to erase all differences between the sexes in the name of equal protection. How willing are you to allow your children and wife to go into unisex locker rooms and bath rooms? Thats just a couple of examples, marriage has always included a man and at least one women, if you want to change the recipe, you have to change the name of the dish, or you will open a can of worms that may wind up destroying our society as we know it.

 

[mex]

Meh....The state shouldn't be involved either way....That's the paleo answer.

The reality is that the state is involved, and just try to take away the married tax return and its benefits and see how far that gets you with Republicans.

While you are at it, try to take away Social Security death benefits for spouses and see how far that gets you with Republicans.

Because that is what the issue of gay marriage is really all about. They just want the same privileges given to them by the State that everyone else gets.



.

The reality is that we don't have to put up with the state being involved if we don't want them involved...They are our servants, not our masters.

And I don't give a ratsass how Socialist Insecurity runs their Ponzi scheme....But the invocation of wanting to have spousal access to death handouts bestowed by the state gives lie to the phony claim that they're getting married for love...They want access to statutory marriage only for the money and other benefits bestowed by third parties....Lying is a very poor way to gain sympathizers with your cause.

ka-BAM

 

[del]

Are you sure you want to erase all differences between the sexes in the name of equal protection. How willing are you to allow your children and wife to go into unisex locker rooms and bath rooms? Thats just a couple of examples, marriage has always included a man and at least one women, if you want to change the recipe, you have to change the name of the dish, or you will open a can of worms that may wind up destroying our society as we know it.

 

[OKTexas]

Are you sure you want to erase all differences between the sexes in the name of equal protection. How willing are you to allow your children and wife to go into unisex locker rooms and bath rooms? Thats just a couple of examples, marriage has always included a man and at least one women, if you want to change the recipe, you have to change the name of the dish, or you will open a can of worms that may wind up destroying our society as we know it.

Such a wise and intelligent reply. NOT

 

[Shelzin]

Are you sure you want to erase all differences between the sexes in the name of equal protection. How willing are you to allow your children and wife to go into unisex locker rooms and bath rooms? Thats just a couple of examples, marriage has always included a man and at least one women, if you want to change the recipe, you have to change the name of the dish, or you will open a can of worms that may wind up destroying our society as we know it.

Such a wise and intelligent reply. NOT

*shrugs* Seems to me he gave it all the attention it deserved. Marriage has nothing to do with unisex locker rooms and bathrooms.

 

[rdean]

The right wing:

Oh, we aren't racist.

Oh, we aren't homophobe.

The shock sounds rather "hollow".

 

[Sinjorri]

Briefly. I am very conservative. I am a registered libertarian,(although i do not like Ron Paul because 1.he's a phony 2.I am not an isolationist. 3. he is a racist 4.his foreign policy can only be explained by the fact that he is an anti-semite) I got my conservatism honestly, I was raised by liberals and when i was young i was a registered democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice. When i began debating politics online i did well, because i am very clever, but soon realized that because i didn't actually know anything i was either going to have to stop pretending i did, or go ahead and find out everything there was to know about the subject. I was sure this endeavor would only further solidify my liberal beliefs. I was wrong. I became a conservative as a side-effect of wanting to know the truth.

I am a lifelong atheist. I can not remember ever feeling any other way. I am no longer an anti-religious jerk, as in my youth(not coincidentally when i was also a lib )

Conservatives are WRONG about the issue of gay marriage. It is a departure from our commitment to the constitution and as such, it opens us up to the accusation of being less than genuine and only defending our precious constitution when it suits us. Just like the left does.

The "equal protection" clause of the fourteenth amendment is clear and has been interpreted (an "originalist" interpretation) to mean that all citizens are to be treated as equals in the eyes of the law(govt). As such, it is absolutely unconstitutional for the federal govt to deny two homosexuals the right to marry as long as it is granting that right to heterosexuals. That is all. It is clear and undeniable.

Why do you think gay marriage always wins in court? They can't ALL be activist judges, can they? And why do you think Republicans wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman? Because, as written, the constitution supports gay marriage. That's why.

I will attempt to counter a few of the objections that are sure to be raised.
1.)slippery-slope. No. The equal protection clause would not support polygamy. If the federal govt wants to limit the number of spouses allowed, the constitution would not be violated. No one would be being denied their "civil rights" as the denial would not be based on any identifiable characteristic, they are not being denied based on gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. etc. Nor would it support bestiality or any of the other absurd slippery-slope arguments.

2.)The GLBT agenda. As i said, i am a conservative. I oppose this organization and work to counter their agenda on a daily basis, as do most conservatives.

3.)Special Rights. This is a rare case where the right they are seeking is not a "special right" but the exact same right as their fellow Americans enjoy. If the government was not in the business of sanctioning marriage, there would be no issue here. Which is probably the best answer in the end. However, since that is unlikely to happen, the constitution must be upheld and conservatives need to practice what I preach P) and have the courage and integrity to defend the principle of liberty in a case where it may be offensive to their own personal sensibilities. Do not tell me they can have civil unions with all the same legal rights. Unfortunately for you, they have every right to demand the same thing as heterosexuals have, even in name. They have every right to demand that it not only be the same thing, but also that it be called the same thing. Separate but equal is not equal.

4.)the Sanctity of marriage. that is a joke. I am 40, my wife is 38. We have been married 22 yrs. When my son was born she was 15 and i was 17, we have 3 children now and plan to be married till we die. I have lived my belief in the sanctity of marriage. So until some of you conservatives start suggesting criminal penalties for adultery, divorce, or maybe making separate checking accounts illegal, i don"t want to hear about the sanctity of marriage. Brittany Spears and Madonna have done more to damage the sanctity of marriage than homosexual could ever hope to. So in a world of underwater elvis weddings, this argument needs to be dropped.

Try to imagine the boost to the conservative movement this might bring. At some point, the religious conservatives, who i love and defend, are going to have to agree to let the constitution govern and leave their faith at home. The freedom of Religion is under assault. I will be there to defend it with you. But maybe you should consider our founding and the significance of how our founders handled it. When it came to the Declaration of Independence, a document that was very personal to the men who wrote and signed it, they paced their God prominently. We are a judeo-christian nation in founding. But when it came time for those same men(largely) to write a governing document for our nation, they left their God out. I will be there to dispel the myth of "separation" , to underscore the fact of "shall make no law", but on this matter i feel you religious conservatives are doing the movement a dis-service.


Jeffrey

i liked u better as a liberal and the other poster is right you arent a liberaterian.

 

[grunt11b]

Marriage is a states issue, take it up with your representative.

 

[Clementine]

I'm a Republican and I am going to a gay wedding tomorrow. I have no problem with it. I believe people should all get tax breaks by filing joint returns. I believe in monogamy and faithfulness. I have never been harmed by a gay. My only complaint used to be that when you met the perfect guy, he was always gay.

 

[Noomi]

Briefly. I am very conservative. I am a registered libertarian,(although i do not like Ron Paul because 1.he's a phony 2.I am not an isolationist. 3. he is a racist 4.his foreign policy can only be explained by the fact that he is an anti-semite) I got my conservatism honestly, I was raised by liberals and when i was young i was a registered democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice. When i began debating politics online i did well, because i am very clever, but soon realized that because i didn't actually know anything i was either going to have to stop pretending i did, or go ahead and find out everything there was to know about the subject. I was sure this endeavor would only further solidify my liberal beliefs. I was wrong. I became a conservative as a side-effect of wanting to know the truth.

I am a lifelong atheist. I can not remember ever feeling any other way. I am no longer an anti-religious jerk, as in my youth(not coincidentally when i was also a lib )

Conservatives are WRONG about the issue of gay marriage. It is a departure from our commitment to the constitution and as such, it opens us up to the accusation of being less than genuine and only defending our precious constitution when it suits us. Just like the left does.

The "equal protection" clause of the fourteenth amendment is clear and has been interpreted (an "originalist" interpretation) to mean that all citizens are to be treated as equals in the eyes of the law(govt). As such, it is absolutely unconstitutional for the federal govt to deny two homosexuals the right to marry as long as it is granting that right to heterosexuals. That is all. It is clear and undeniable.

Why do you think gay marriage always wins in court? They can't ALL be activist judges, can they? And why do you think Republicans wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman? Because, as written, the constitution supports gay marriage. That's why.

I will attempt to counter a few of the objections that are sure to be raised.
1.)slippery-slope. No. The equal protection clause would not support polygamy. If the federal govt wants to limit the number of spouses allowed, the constitution would not be violated. No one would be being denied their "civil rights" as the denial would not be based on any identifiable characteristic, they are not being denied based on gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. etc. Nor would it support bestiality or any of the other absurd slippery-slope arguments.

2.)The GLBT agenda. As i said, i am a conservative. I oppose this organization and work to counter their agenda on a daily basis, as do most conservatives.

3.)Special Rights. This is a rare case where the right they are seeking is not a "special right" but the exact same right as their fellow Americans enjoy. If the government was not in the business of sanctioning marriage, there would be no issue here. Which is probably the best answer in the end. However, since that is unlikely to happen, the constitution must be upheld and conservatives need to practice what I preach P) and have the courage and integrity to defend the principle of liberty in a case where it may be offensive to their own personal sensibilities. Do not tell me they can have civil unions with all the same legal rights. Unfortunately for you, they have every right to demand the same thing as heterosexuals have, even in name. They have every right to demand that it not only be the same thing, but also that it be called the same thing. Separate but equal is not equal.

4.)the Sanctity of marriage. that is a joke. I am 40, my wife is 38. We have been married 22 yrs. When my son was born she was 15 and i was 17, we have 3 children now and plan to be married till we die. I have lived my belief in the sanctity of marriage. So until some of you conservatives start suggesting criminal penalties for adultery, divorce, or maybe making separate checking accounts illegal, i don"t want to hear about the sanctity of marriage. Brittany Spears and Madonna have done more to damage the sanctity of marriage than homosexual could ever hope to. So in a world of underwater elvis weddings, this argument needs to be dropped.

Try to imagine the boost to the conservative movement this might bring. At some point, the religious conservatives, who i love and defend, are going to have to agree to let the constitution govern and leave their faith at home. The freedom of Religion is under assault. I will be there to defend it with you. But maybe you should consider our founding and the significance of how our founders handled it. When it came to the Declaration of Independence, a document that was very personal to the men who wrote and signed it, they paced their God prominently. We are a judeo-christian nation in founding. But when it came time for those same men(largely) to write a governing document for our nation, they left their God out. I will be there to dispel the myth of "separation" , to underscore the fact of "shall make no law", but on this matter i feel you religious conservatives are doing the movement a dis-service.


Jeffrey

I love the way you laid out your opinion, and its great to find a conservative who isn't bigoted!

 

[Noomi]

Are you sure you want to erase all differences between the sexes in the name of equal protection. How willing are you to allow your children and wife to go into unisex locker rooms and bath rooms? Thats just a couple of examples, marriage has always included a man and at least one women, if you want to change the recipe, you have to change the name of the dish, or you will open a can of worms that may wind up destroying our society as we know it.

That has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

 

[Bfgrn]

Briefly. I am very conservative. I am a registered libertarian,(although i do not like Ron Paul because 1.he's a phony 2.I am not an isolationist. 3. he is a racist 4.his foreign policy can only be explained by the fact that he is an anti-semite) I got my conservatism honestly, I was raised by liberals and when i was young i was a registered democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice. When i began debating politics online i did well, because i am very clever, but soon realized that because i didn't actually know anything i was either going to have to stop pretending i did, or go ahead and find out everything there was to know about the subject. I was sure this endeavor would only further solidify my liberal beliefs. I was wrong. I became a conservative as a side-effect of wanting to know the truth.

I have found that the truth has a very liberal bias. We don't argue opinions here. We argue facts. What is called conservatism today is dogma driven doctrinaire. It is better labeled narcissism.

We are all born conservative...self centered and fearful. It is only when we mature that we learn that other people matter and others are worthy of trust and love. The ones that never develop remain conservative.

I look forward to exposing your false assumptions with the truth.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone