Yeah, what we need are good communicators. We need to get the message out that our social/economic beliefs are not what the liberals claim they are. We need to explain why small government policies are good for everybody and aren't "uncaring." The left's claim that small government is incompatible with compassion must be shattered. After all, compassion is not what the government does, but what you and I do independent of the government. Their claims against our social policies as theocratic must also be shattered - but I wouldn't be against a change in our tactics on this front either. Like you said, we can be the party for religious freedom, for protecting innocent human life, etc. They've managed to turn the gay marriage debate into a civil rights debate, which is not a good thing. We need to discredit this notion without discrediting ourselves in the public eye. People need to be convinced of what it really is - a movement for pushing state intervention in promoting a lifestyle that many consider immoral onto everyone.
I'm trying to convert both sides to subsidiarity as the most valid way to have a merciful, compassionate, and welcoming society. By keeping the robust mechanism as local as possible, we can harbor an atmosphere of warm community more readily. In some cases it might not result in a more efficient system, but could certainly result in more net cash flow and be better for the economy anyway. Insomuch as I have been trying to sell this to all governments and officials that listen, it is likely that through the activities I have taken, and those of others, even under my leadership, that there is a mixture of people with subsidiarity in mind throughout both parties. It is one of the easiest structural methods to sell.
I propose better laws to combat other areas of disagreement, such as gay marriage. I do not support that notion that supporting gay couples is a fundamental good for society. However, I see that there is a need for persons in some life circumstances to find useful the 'efficient excercise' of the 'marital rights bundle.' I reject that the institution of marriage is comparable to other groupings of persons, for whatever reason, because the marital union is typically generative, even if less so than in previous history.
Thus, I typically appeal to the logic of the older hetero-normative philosophy on marriage, that seems to have been typical in past times in most gay communities. The belief that marriage is not fundamental to and good for society is a new idea, and false, that seems to be based in the current crisis of marriage in our society. I doubt, however, that when gay activists, see a family like mine they would rationally believe that the government should consider our groupings equivalent for government support. With many or most appearing to side with the family, and few, on the other, insulted with prospect of children destroying the Earth. I've been around the issue for a while now and there are many viewpoints here. Some gay activists are only interested in the issue to the extent were they either get into marriage, or make marriage function properly. Others are devoted to getting their rights, which is assuaged, in many cases by other institutions. I think much can be done, in these instances, to de-sexualize the institutions, thus opening up the relationships to the very common daughter cares for mother situations, often when both are elderly and widowed. For a few gay activists, this is not enough, and they demand what they see as fully equality, which most people think is naturally impossible and even dangerous for society. Whether or not the government should insist on itself defending the term marriage in the law is probably the subject for debate based on feasibility of doing so, and risk of a tragic and catastrophic loss due to the insistance. Rather, it could be best to ignore the word, and simply and logically gift heterosexual couples with the rational wedding gift. A general strengthening of the marital contract and better guide for divorce judges, including an intertwined social services institution would seem to be the most appropriate further implementation of law in this area.
USA means nothing in the big scheme of things, it's just another distraction, kinda like American Idol
