The ‘weakened’ left base in the Democratic party is pushing hard for gay marriage in numerous states (see NY). I don’t see any type desire to include socially conservative Democrats in much of anything.

It is also not difficult for factions of both parties to cooperate when they share a common interest, again all you have to do is look back in history and you will find plenty of that. And if the parties drop their narrow stances on social issues, it would help end the extremes from controlling the respective parties allowing members from both sides to better work together. Again this is happening within the democratic party today with a weakened left base and a strengthened center. It could happen much easier than you think with the republican party.

As for Republicans trying to define what conservatism is – the problem there is that we can’t even agree on what it means to be a Republican. There are many who lean so far Left that calling them Centrist is being generous. There are others that are near-libertarian. And all sorts in-between. I think we have to start there before we even begin to define conservatism.

Now you see what a large obstacle it is.

I do believe very much that the parts of the country that are against any move against social liberal positions or movements of the nation towards that side to have representation on those issues. But they should be present in both parties to ensure that party identification is not merely reduced to one hot button issue. If an area that is socially conservative chooses a democrat, that democrat should be a socially conservative democrat or the same if they choose a republican. If a region chooses a republican but it is a socially liberal region, then that republican (or democrat for that matter) should be socially liberal.

I believe that in doing this both parties can have open stands on social issues but the social conservative bloc will nevertheless well represent its constituents even though its not enclosed in only one party but split amongst two. For a social conservative, that would not matter if that is their most important subject matter in politics since it doesn’t matter whether they are democrats or republicans, just so that on the issue of abortion or gay rights the representatives vote social conservative. This works the other way for social liberals by the way.

Again, representation of social liberals and social conservatives and their respective regions is important. I just don’t believe that either party should be defined by taking a singular stance on it which merely reduces each party to a specific stance leaving people without any ability to give the other party a chance at alternative governance in those respective regions (democrats in the south, republicans in the north and coasts).

By taking this route this would prevent that from happening. If the social liberals or conservatives wish to pass something specifically on a social issue, they can do as was done frequently in the early to mid/late 20th century and create a temporary coalition to do as they believe is right. This was the norm when it came to social issues for many more years than has been the norm of the parties taking a narrow minded specific stance on social issues that took away the ability for either parties to be competitive in any region of the nation.

Liberals have stated over and over that their ultimate goal is a Supreme Court decision which would make gay marriage legal in all 50 states. This plan to do an end-run around state governments and legislate through judicial action has been a hallmark of the Left for quite some time. … the opposition’s national agenda forces us to adopt a national strategy in response.

I haven’t heard about this secret plan, but then again I’m not in the smoke-filled back rooms where the evil liberal conspiracy plots its sneaky agenda. No seriously, I’m very curious to know who has been saying this over and over. I mean, I have no doubt that at some point, when like 40/50 states have lifted the ban on same-sex marriage and the holdouts look more clearly bigoted, a Supreme Court decision could happen that would finish things up. I don’t know how one would even go about making a particular Supreme Court decision happen; you could bring a case but I don’t see any viable (or ethical!) way to ensure a particular outcome. But I thought that liberal activists were in the process of encouraging state legislatures to change their own laws. The national efforts I’ve heard about (DOMA, and the Federal Marriage Amendment) were against same-sex marriage, not for it.

Hmm. About your final question. You may not care what I think, and that’s cool, but here’s my two cents. I think the Republican party ought to get together and decide what it means by “conservative.” Does it mean keeping things the way they are and making only incremental changes when absolutely necessary, or does it mean small government keeping out of people’s pockets and people’s lives as much as possible? These attitudes may come together from time to time, but they’re definitely not necessarily identical, even though they’re both referred to as “conservative.” It’s hard to sell the idea that the government should leave people alone in most arenas (lower taxes, fewer social programs, fewer regulations on parents or on schools, etc.) but should be banning things that are immoral at the same time.

I don’t think that the Democratic message on same-sex marriage is, at its core, about leaving people alone to do whatever they want — because that wouldn’t jive with Democratic attitudes about taxation and regulation. Liberals are generally okay with government intervention for a particular set of purposes, like helping the less fortunate, taking care of the disadvantaged and oppressed — and that’s the frame where rights for same-sex couples comes into play.