Why do people hate Liberals?

[Foxfyre]

Prior to Teddy Roosevelt, even though they slipped up now and then on a very limited basis, all U.S. presidents and U.S. congresses saw no constitutional provision that would allow the federal government to use the people's money to benefit anybody. It was not the prerogative of the U.S. government to dispense charity, to pick winners or losers, or otherwise engage in crony capitalism or use the people's money in any other capacity to 'buy votes'.

In other words, the federal government was restricted from doing or mandating anything that the Constitution did not specifically allow it to do. Everything else was for the states and local communities to do.

Teddy Roosevelt turned that on its head when he pronounced that the federal government could do anything that the Constitution did not specifically PROHIBIT. And that opened the barn doors wide and they have never been closed since.

He started a tiny snowball rolling that was given a huge push in the FDR administration and it has been gathering size and momentum ever since until now it threatens to crush us all.

The ONLY remedy is a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the federal government at ANY level from using the people's money to benefit any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all and that prohibits the federal government from passing any legislation that benefits any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all. If we would do that, there would be no more crony capitalism, no more entitlement mentality at the federal level, and we will wipe out 95% of the all the graft and corruption in government and among the recipients of government largesse.

That is the conservative remedy.

I'm sure the liberals will be absolutely horrified to even think of such a thing.

So your remedy is to return to the Gilded Age and the Robber Barons, where a worker was cheaper to replace than protect. A worker's life meant less than squeezing every penny out of workers. I would hope EVERYONE would be absolutely horrified to even think of such a thing.

I'd hope otherwise. Fear is a horrible motivation for policy and leads to the worst sorts of government. Instead, I'd hope people would recognize these sorts of strawmen for what they are (you forgot Somalia!!!) and think about the issues with the courage to face them honestly. The goal isn't to 'return' to anything, but to correct our mistakes. And to ensure we don't repeat them.

What about the actual issue I raised? Crony capitalism is implemented via regulation, so it's hard to see how more of the same is going to solve the problem. "Hair of the dog" might make sense to a drunk as a cure for a hangover, but sober folks recognize it as merely prolonging the problem.

According to the Office of the Federal Register, in 1998, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the official listing of all regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages in 201 volumes that claimed 19 feet of shelf space. In 1970, the CFR totaled only 54,834 pages.

That figure has probably tripled by now with 33,000 pages added for Obamacare alone with dozens more being added with each passing day. And yet the more regulation they write, the more of a mess things are in.

Bfgn continues to point to the sins of society and and refuses to write a coherant description for modern American liberalism--but in fairness to him he can't as almost all liberals stake their entire philosophy of life on a belief that the answers are in punishing or stopping the other guy. And most liberals are unable to acknowledge or recognize that most of our societal problems and most messes we are in are a response to or a result of federal meddling and overreach even as he looks to the federal government as the solution for it.

 

[CandySlice]

Okay, I have had the same experience. What better way to learn to dislike someone than to read some of the swill I've read here coming from the mouths of liberals. Are they all such hateful people?? I don't really see republicans stooping to that level, at least not as often. Sorry libs, I call 'em like I see 'em.

Emphasis mine. The most unintentionally funny post I've read on this board.

Every political party has it's share of nut balls but you can't beat a liberal in the practice of intentionally suspending commom sense. Like it or lump it. your choice.

 

[CandySlice]

Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives. That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.

Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana. Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.

Right that is why when you look at the economies of red states and free market nations in Europe, like Poland, their economies are so much worse than New York, the UK, France, and Spain.

/s

Do you have anything to back that up other than an emotional outburst?

Red States Are Welfare Queens

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

Whooo-hoo. Way to spin statistics. This is a specious piece of liberal clap trap and I rest my case. You people have no shame in addition to having no sense.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That is complete bullshit because the libtards that did the stats count as "federal spending" defense spending, federally funded research, and unearned tax credits, etc as federal receipts, and that is NOT WELFARE, dumbass.

Well defense spending is bloated, much of it simply pork barrelling, and federally funded research money is absolutely subject to cronyism and pork barrelling, so yes, it is appropriate to include those items in those figures.

No its not. Welfare programs are a specific set of programs and they do not count as welfare just because you libs like to stack the deck.

You libs are pretty funny when you aren't just being asinine.

 

[numan]

They did try to stop it with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. And conservatives have fought tooth and nail to stop it, castrate it or water it down.

Conservatives are ALL ABOUT crony capitalism. It IS deeply embedded in their DNA.

Crony capitalism, and even worse vices, are embedded in the DNA of Neo-Cons.

However, there once was a conservative philosophy that was worth something : to progress while saving the best of the past.

That is reprehensible to the Neo-Con Thugs now running US politics.
.

 

[numan]

I think anyone who imagines that, in the 21st century, freedom for the individual can be attained with 18th century ideas and procedures should be considered certifiably insane.

If the words "freedom" and "liberty" are to be anything more than patriotic blither, the archaic, sclerotic US Constitution should be thrown in the wastebasket, and we should do the hard work of framing a system of government that would work in the modern world.

Actually our current system of government is perfectly suited for the 21st Century....

Would you care to provide some evidence for this, on the face of it, absurd assertion you have made?

.

 

[Foxfyre]

A principle based on truth does not change whether it applies in the 18th, 19th, 20th, or 21st centuries.

If unalienable God given rights existed in the 18th Century, it is absurd to think that they do not exist in the 21st century.

If infringement of unalienable rights were detrimental to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the 18th Century, it is absurd to think that the same would not be the case in the 21st Century.

If the free market produced prosperity in the 18th Century, it is absurd to think that the free market will not produce prosperity in the 21st Century.

If self governance by the people free of a king, monarch, pope, dictator, or any other combination or form of authoritarian government produced freedom, prosperity, innovation, benevolence, and progress in the 18th Century, there is no reason to believe it would not produce the same in the 21st century.

Which is another reason to despise liberalism that presumes to assign us the rights we will have, that presumes to order the market according to some authorities design rather than let it work laizzez faire, that does not consider it infringement on rights to require one citizen to serve another, and that does not trust the people to govern themselves.

 

[CandySlice]

Okay, I have had the same experience. What better way to learn to dislike someone than to read some of the swill I've read here coming from the mouths of liberals. Are they all such hateful people?? I don't really see republicans stooping to that level, at least not as often. Sorry libs, I call 'em like I see 'em.

Emphasis mine. The most unintentionally funny post I've read on this board.

Poor thing. How do you get along without a sense of humor?

 

[CandySlice]

Okay, I have had the same experience. What better way to learn to dislike someone than to read some of the swill I've read here coming from the mouths of liberals. Are they all such hateful people?? I don't really see republicans stooping to that level, at least not as often. Sorry libs, I call 'em like I see 'em.

Emphasis mine. The most unintentionally funny post I've read on this board.

Speaking as someone who is not conservative (but only in contrast to the wacko-left of today does anyone think me conservative) the liberals of yesterday are far more tolerant than any conservative, but perhaps too tolerant.

The 'Liberals' of our time are mostly fascists who attack anyone that disagrees with them. I cant count how many times I have seen libtards post on other sites that they hate people that disagree with them, and the anger that so many of them have toward Christians is an example.

Libtards are not liberals, really, they are thugs who want to beat the world into submission to their ideology.

Agreed these are not what we used to call liberals. These people are just angry, disgruntled and probably envious of anything anyone else wants. Especially freedom. Thugs indeed. Disagree at your peril. Thery'll start a hate campaign on dissenters at the drop of a hat. It gets so predictable after a while.

 

[numan]

A principle based on truth does not change whether it applies in the 18th, 19th, 20th, or 21st centuries.

If unalienable God given rights existed in the 18th Century, it is absurd to think that they do not exist in the 21st century.

If infringement of unalienable rights were detrimental to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the 18th Century, it is absurd to think that the same would not be the case in the 21st Century.

And what does this tossing around of idle abstractions have to do with the Constitution of the United States -- even assuming that they were anything more than blither?

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Crony capitalism,

Crony? You mean like requiring all people to buy the product of well connected corporations and enforcing it with the IRS?

and even worse vices, are embedded in the DNA of Neo-Cons.

We can see that, with Fascist care...

However, there once was a conservative philosophy that was worth something : to progress while saving the best of the past.

That is reprehensible to the Neo-Con Thugs now running US politics.
.

Bush is still in charge...

 

[Foxfyre]

A principle based on truth does not change whether it applies in the 18th, 19th, 20th, or 21st centuries.

If unalienable God given rights existed in the 18th Century, it is absurd to think that they do not exist in the 21st century.

If infringement of unalienable rights were detrimental to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the 18th Century, it is absurd to think that the same would not be the case in the 21st Century.

And what does this tossing around of idle abstractions have to do with the Constitution of the United States -- even assuming that they were anything more than blither?

.

For me they are not idle abstractions. They are fundamental principles by which we all should measure the policies and regulations that are imposed upon the people. The Constitution was built upon the foundation of those very principles, and for most of the next 150 years American government tested every proposed law, rule, and solution in the light of the freedoms intended via those guiding principles.

In my opinion, few modern American liberals are capable of articulating, understanding, and/or relating to such guiding principles and scorn those who are. Heaven help us when even those who are philosophically conservative, aka classical liberal, also become incapable of articulating, understanding, and/or relating to such guiding principles.

 

[Pogo]

...

Which is another reason to despise liberalism that presumes to assign us the rights we will have, that presumes to order the market according to some authorities design rather than let it work laizzez faire, that does not consider it infringement on rights to require one citizen to serve another, and that does not trust the people to govern themselves.

I wish I had seen this thread sooner -- 1500 posts is more than I can digest.

Suffice to say (just to jump in midstream as a pretext to put the thread on my watch list), this last paragraph has it exactly backwards as far as what Liberalism actually is. (Btw it's laissez-faire, "to let it happen").

Methinks there's a lot of wags confusing Liberalism with Leftism, or in this case with Authoritarianism. That's quite a stretch. Perhaps the question is why we want to poison a political term, let alone that it's the very philosophy that birthed this country.



Ah, somebody's prolly already covered this on pages 4395 and 73469...

 

[dblack]

...

Which is another reason to despise liberalism that presumes to assign us the rights we will have, that presumes to order the market according to some authorities design rather than let it work laizzez faire, that does not consider it infringement on rights to require one citizen to serve another, and that does not trust the people to govern themselves.

I wish I had seen this thread sooner -- 1500 posts is more than I can digest.

Suffice to say (just to jump in midstream as a pretext to put the thread on my watch list), this last paragraph has it exactly backwards as far as what Liberalism actually is. (Btw it's laissez-faire, "to let it happen").

Methinks there's a lot of wags confusing Liberalism with Leftism, or in this case with Authoritarianism. That's quite a stretch. Perhaps the question is why we want to poison a political term, let alone that it's the very philosophy that birthed this country.



Ah, somebody's prolly already covered this on pages 4395 and 73469...

True and unfortunate. But for most people, 'liberal' means Democrat and 'conservative' means Republican. Neither of these is accurate, so it makes these discussions confusing at best. Are we talking about real 'liberal' values, or the authoritarian/corporatist ideology of the Democrats?

 

[Foxfyre]

...

Which is another reason to despise liberalism that presumes to assign us the rights we will have, that presumes to order the market according to some authorities design rather than let it work laizzez faire, that does not consider it infringement on rights to require one citizen to serve another, and that does not trust the people to govern themselves.

I wish I had seen this thread sooner -- 1500 posts is more than I can digest.

Suffice to say (just to jump in midstream as a pretext to put the thread on my watch list), this last paragraph has it exactly backwards as far as what Liberalism actually is. (Btw it's laissez-faire, "to let it happen").

Methinks there's a lot of wags confusing Liberalism with Leftism, or in this case with Authoritarianism. That's quite a stretch. Perhaps the question is why we want to poison a political term, let alone that it's the very philosophy that birthed this country.



Ah, somebody's prolly already covered this on pages 4395 and 73469...

True and unfortunate. But for most people, 'liberal' means Democrat and 'conservative' means Republican. Neither of these is accurate, so it makes these discussions confusing at best. Are we talking about real 'liberal' values, or the authoritarian/corporatist ideology of the Democrats?

That is why, in my opinion, being able to define the terms is so critical. Most modern conservatives aka classical liberals can define the terms. Very few, maybe none, of the modern American liberals can or will even try.

I have asked, begged, offered, goaded our liberal friends here to provide a coherant definition of modern American liberalism, and so far not one has been able to do so. They throw out vague terms and fuzzy feel good phrases, but not a single thing that could be a guiding principle for what laws and regulation should apply and what should not. (Or perhaps they actually can write a description, but would be embarrassed at how it would look written down?)

If the goal is to return to a set of fundamentals of liberty, it is not necessary to trash other groups or individuals or political parties or whatever. You know what you want to accomplish and the Founders gave us the prnciples to use to do that and to measure every function and action of government against. Conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians want to return to those principles. Most liberals ignore them and/or shrug them off as irrelevent or unimportant.

If the goal is to force everybody into a prescribed preconceived mold of what society is supposed to be and demand that everybody toe specific acceptable language, mindset, and fuzzy concepts of collectivism under the authority of an authoritarian central government, then you are describing a liberal. The American liberal/leftist is the statist, the political class, that demands strict controls on what society must and must not tolerate, and looks to a monarch or other authoritarian government to enforce it. It is the antithesis of liberty. And that is why the conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians abhore liberalism.

But I wonder if Pogo can write a reasonably short and coherant definition of the differences he sees between the American left and the American liberal? I figure if anybody can, he can.

 

[Pogo]

...

Which is another reason to despise liberalism that presumes to assign us the rights we will have, that presumes to order the market according to some authorities design rather than let it work laizzez faire, that does not consider it infringement on rights to require one citizen to serve another, and that does not trust the people to govern themselves.

I wish I had seen this thread sooner -- 1500 posts is more than I can digest.

Suffice to say (just to jump in midstream as a pretext to put the thread on my watch list), this last paragraph has it exactly backwards as far as what Liberalism actually is. (Btw it's laissez-faire, "to let it happen").

Methinks there's a lot of wags confusing Liberalism with Leftism, or in this case with Authoritarianism. That's quite a stretch. Perhaps the question is why we want to poison a political term, let alone that it's the very philosophy that birthed this country.



Ah, somebody's prolly already covered this on pages 4395 and 73469...

True and unfortunate. But for most people, 'liberal' means Democrat and 'conservative' means Republican. Neither of these is accurate, so it makes these discussions confusing at best. Are we talking about real 'liberal' values, or the authoritarian/corporatist ideology of the Democrats?

I'd prefer to keep linguistic terms stable and stop morphing them into their own opposites. Nothing good can come of that. Let's recognize that "liberal", "leftist", "conservative" and "rightist" are four different things, not two.

But let's be clear: BOTH political parties are corporatist. Eisenhower warned us about that on his way out the door, and he was absolutely correct.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wish I had seen this thread sooner -- 1500 posts is more than I can digest.

Suffice to say (just to jump in midstream as a pretext to put the thread on my watch list), this last paragraph has it exactly backwards as far as what Liberalism actually is. (Btw it's laissez-faire, "to let it happen").

Methinks there's a lot of wags confusing Liberalism with Leftism, or in this case with Authoritarianism. That's quite a stretch. Perhaps the question is why we want to poison a political term, let alone that it's the very philosophy that birthed this country.



Ah, somebody's prolly already covered this on pages 4395 and 73469...

True and unfortunate. But for most people, 'liberal' means Democrat and 'conservative' means Republican. Neither of these is accurate, so it makes these discussions confusing at best. Are we talking about real 'liberal' values, or the authoritarian/corporatist ideology of the Democrats?

I'd prefer to keep linguistic terms stable and stop morphing them into their own opposites. Nothing good can come of that. Let's recognize that "liberal", "leftist", "conservative" and "rightist" are four different things, not two.

But let's be clear: BOTH political parties are corporatist. Eisenhower warned us about that on his way out the door, and he was absolutely correct.

But unless you understand what is opposite of what, and unless the terms are defined, no coherent debate or even a conversation is possible.

You are correct that political parties are not useful to use as definitions, nor is any individual or group or demographic, nor is pointing to present or past sins. Even previous historical definitions or dictionaries are not that useful in how Americans understand those terms.

In the simplest terms, 'left' in American vernacular is looking to government for solutions and results and 'right' is looking to the individual for solutions and results.

American liberals/statists/political class look to government to create the sort of society they think they want.

American consevatives/classical liberals/libertarians (small "L") look to the government to secure our unalienable rights and allow the various states to function as one nation and then leave us alone to govern ourselves and form whateve sort of societies we wish to have.

 

[Pogo]

True and unfortunate. But for most people, 'liberal' means Democrat and 'conservative' means Republican. Neither of these is accurate, so it makes these discussions confusing at best. Are we talking about real 'liberal' values, or the authoritarian/corporatist ideology of the Democrats?

I'd prefer to keep linguistic terms stable and stop morphing them into their own opposites. Nothing good can come of that. Let's recognize that "liberal", "leftist", "conservative" and "rightist" are four different things, not two.

But let's be clear: BOTH political parties are corporatist. Eisenhower warned us about that on his way out the door, and he was absolutely correct.

But unless you understand what is opposite of what, and unless the terms are defined, no coherent debate or even a conversation is possible.

You are correct that political parties are not useful to use as definitions, nor is any individual or group or demographic, nor is pointing to present or past sins. Even previous historical definitions or dictionaries are not that useful in how Americans understand those terms.

In the simplest terms, 'left' in American vernacular is looking to government for solutions and results and 'right' is looking to the individual for solutions and results.

American liberals/statists/political class look to government to create the sort of society they think they want.

American consevatives/classical liberals/libertarians (small "L") look to the government to secure our unalienable rights and allow the various states to function as one nation and then leave us alone to govern ourselves and form whateve sort of societies we wish to have.

Foxy, you've just mixed a lot of disparate political terms in a kind of toxic soup, even plunking direct opposites next to each other. I think that's a major part of the problem.

Especially this for a start:

In the simplest terms, 'left' in American vernacular is looking to government for solutions and results and 'right' is looking to the individual for solutions and results.

Myth. Both the left and right look to government for solutions; it's Liberalism that does not. Left passes laws on affirmative action; Right passes laws on gay marriage. Same difference. The individual's interest is the domain of Liberalism, which is opposed by both left and right.

All I have time for right now....

 

[CandySlice]

I wish I had seen this thread sooner -- 1500 posts is more than I can digest.

Suffice to say (just to jump in midstream as a pretext to put the thread on my watch list), this last paragraph has it exactly backwards as far as what Liberalism actually is. (Btw it's laissez-faire, "to let it happen").

Methinks there's a lot of wags confusing Liberalism with Leftism, or in this case with Authoritarianism. That's quite a stretch. Perhaps the question is why we want to poison a political term, let alone that it's the very philosophy that birthed this country.



Ah, somebody's prolly already covered this on pages 4395 and 73469...

True and unfortunate. But for most people, 'liberal' means Democrat and 'conservative' means Republican. Neither of these is accurate, so it makes these discussions confusing at best. Are we talking about real 'liberal' values, or the authoritarian/corporatist ideology of the Democrats?

That is why, in my opinion, being able to define the terms is so critical. Most modern conservatives aka classical liberals can define the terms. Very few, maybe none, of the modern American liberals can or will even try.

I have asked, begged, offered, goaded our liberal friends here to provide a coherant definition of modern American liberalism, and so far not one has been able to do so. They throw out vague terms and fuzzy feel good phrases, but not a single thing that could be a guiding principle for what laws and regulation should apply and what should not. (Or perhaps they actually can write a description, but would be embarrassed at how it would look written down?)
If the goal is to return to a set of fundamentals of liberty, it is not necessary to trash other groups or individuals or political parties or whatever. You know what you want to accomplish and the Founders gave us the prnciples to use to do that and to measure every function and action of government against. Conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians want to return to those principles. Most liberals ignore them and/or shrug them off as irrelevent or unimportant.

If the goal is to force everybody into a prescribed preconceived mold of what society is supposed to be and demand that everybody toe specific acceptable language, mindset, and fuzzy concepts of collectivism under the authority of an authoritarian central government, then you are describing a liberal. The American liberal/leftist is the statist, the political class, that demands strict controls on what society must and must not tolerate, and looks to a monarch or other authoritarian government to enforce it. It is the antithesis of liberty. And that is why the conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians abhore liberalism.

But I wonder if Pogo can write a reasonably short and coherant definition of the differences he sees between the American left and the American liberal? I figure if anybody can, he can.

Foxy, I do hope you aren't holding your breath. Without catch phrases these people would be mute.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'd prefer to keep linguistic terms stable and stop morphing them into their own opposites. Nothing good can come of that. Let's recognize that "liberal", "leftist", "conservative" and "rightist" are four different things, not two.

But let's be clear: BOTH political parties are corporatist. Eisenhower warned us about that on his way out the door, and he was absolutely correct.

But unless you understand what is opposite of what, and unless the terms are defined, no coherent debate or even a conversation is possible.

You are correct that political parties are not useful to use as definitions, nor is any individual or group or demographic, nor is pointing to present or past sins. Even previous historical definitions or dictionaries are not that useful in how Americans understand those terms.

In the simplest terms, 'left' in American vernacular is looking to government for solutions and results and 'right' is looking to the individual for solutions and results.

American liberals/statists/political class look to government to create the sort of society they think they want.

American consevatives/classical liberals/libertarians (small "L") look to the government to secure our unalienable rights and allow the various states to function as one nation and then leave us alone to govern ourselves and form whateve sort of societies we wish to have.

Foxy, you've just mixed a lot of disparate political terms in a kind of toxic soup, even plunking direct opposites next to each other. I think that's a major part of the problem.

Especially this for a start:

In the simplest terms, 'left' in American vernacular is looking to government for solutions and results and 'right' is looking to the individual for solutions and results.

Myth. Both the left and right look to government for solutions; it's Liberalism that does not. Left passes laws on affirmative action; Right passes laws on gay marriage. Same difference. The individual's interest is the domain of Liberalism, which is opposed by both left and right.

All I have time for right now....

No dear. I have dealt in specifics and have refused to combine the concepts into a 'soup' as you suggest. Those who would pass laws re 'gay marriage' at the federal level are not coming from the 'right' as you suggest. The American 'right'/conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (little "L") does not look to the federal government to dictate laws and regulation regarding marriage period. Such was never intended to be a function of the federal government.

Those on the 'right' however do see definitions of marriage and laws and regulations regarding it to be a legitimate function of the state and/or local community who were intended to have power to form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have. The 'left' is not likely to trust the people themselves to have control of that.

When you have more time, please give me a coherant comprehensive and reasonably simple definition of what you think liberalism is as the modern American liberal understands it to be. If you do that, you will be a giant of intelligence and integrity among the average liberal posting on this board.