But gay marriage *is* allowed, in five different states and DC. Passing a constitutional amendment overriding such state law is, again, the very definition of “more government”.

When you refer to “warrantless wiretapping,” are you referring to the Patriot Act, which was passed by a nearly unanimous, bipartisan congressional vote, as stipulated by the Constitution? If so, how, exactly, do you view this as un-Constitutional?

In a nutshell, they want less federal spending, less government takeover of industries, adherance to the Constitution, individual freedom and personal responsibility, a balanced budget and a simpler and fairer taxation system. Not exactly radical stuff.

That’s the polar opposite of “less government”.

But gay marriage is already not allowed. It doesn’t take any effort or any growth of government to maintain the existing situation. All they’re doing is denying a marriage license to something that has never been considered marriage before. How is that “more” government?

Just as you don’t want John to speak for you, do me a favor and don’t speak for me. If you’re concerned about building libraries and dams, or giving money to victims of domestic violence, you are more than welcome to give your money to those causes. It’s called “charity.”

Coming up with a brand-new Constitutional Amendment that would render gay marriage illegal most definitely sounds like more government to me. The government has many important responsibilities, but telling two people who love one another that they can’t be married doesn’t sound like a great allocation of resources. And that doesn’t even take into account the cruelty and discrimination inherent in such a bill.
Also, since when is maintaining the status quo such a lofty ideal? What if the status quo is provincial and ignorant?

I’m not going to speak for Steven or state for him what he means like you but rather for myself:

I don’t know what the tea party stands for because all I have read and heard from them are complaints with no solutions. I’m tired of it from both republicans and democrats.

So you say tea party is tired of taxation without representation? Been goin’ on for generations, nothin’ new boy. Deficit spending by Obama? Well, just continuing the Reagan/Bush policy interrupted by Clinton. Government taking over businesses? Started by Bush and repeatedly stated by the government about wanting to exit as soon as possible. No fear of lasting socialism there McCarthy.

Stop speaking for everybody, I do not want lower taxes and less government.

“Everyone wants less government, lower taxes, and fewer entitlements.”

I have been in favor of higher taxes for quite some time, even before some republican call girl (a person who called me to ask me political questions, not the kind that Elliot Spitzer frequented) asked me if I felt taxes where too high. I responded with no and that I thought they should be higher and she hung up on me. That was at least 7 years ago.

I think we are a better country because of taxes. The taxes that help fund our public libraries, the taxes that helped build the Hoover Dam, the taxes that help survivors of domestic violence find a place to live and legal representation.

When taxes cuts happen, those are the programs that get cut. The people who make those programs and projects happen are the ones who lose their jobs in support of large corporations increasing their profits.

To be clear, the above is not meant as an argument against gay marriage. I’m just saying that the question of legislating morality is the wrong argument.

Note that contrast with Lawrence v. Texas where the justices struck down the sodomy law in Texas. This was a case where the government had indeed been legislating morality and had no business doing so.

That’s the polar opposite of “less government”.

How is opposing gay marriage, in other words, maintaining the status quo in contradiction to “less government”?