Social issues and conservatives in the 2010s

In 2005, republicans in congress failed to pass President Bush's proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. States across the nation have moved towards greater rights for same-sex couples. Furthermore, some of the concerns of social conservatives have been brought into question by an influx of libertarians and younger conservatives such as myself. It is my belief that conservatives should continue to promote their economic and foreign policy agenda which originated during the 1980 campaign with President Reagan, re-vitalized by Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America, and in some ways transformed under President George W. Bush. But social policy needs to look a little bit different. First of all, the base of the republican party is pro-life, against same-sex marriage, against gun control, against affirmative action, against hate crimes legislation, and for capital punishment. So, let me take this opportunity to address a few of these issues. First, abortion. Roe V. Wade is an unconstitutional law that violates the 10th amendment. Therefore, it should be reversed and the decision of abortion should be left up to each individual state. However, the partial-birth abortion ban is perfectly constitutional because during the third trimester, a baby is a baby and not a fetus, and aborting it would be a violation of a human being's "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." Another big issue is same-sex marriage. This is another issue best left up to states. Personally, I support civil unions, but that is just me and not the nation as a whole. I also oppose the notion of same-sex couples adopting children, I feel that children are better off with either a single guardian or preferably, a loving couple as guardians. However, from a legal and constitutional standpoint, that is not my call to make. The same goes for gun control. Personally, I believe in basic back round checks, but that people have a right to keep and bear arms so long as they are not insane or criminals. The federal government can have a say in guns crossing state lines, but they don't have the constitutional authority to regulate guns within a state. On affirmative action, the federal government, from my perspective, can regulate whether this idea is implemented only on companies that operate in multiple states. Corporations that operate in only one state and do not participate in interstate commerce are therefore exempt. This leads me to the conclusion that to settle matters, the states should decide whether or not they want to enact affirmative action laws. Capital punishment is an area where I feel is exempt from the federalist vs. centralized government argument. If a criminal is allowed to harm people in one state or various states, that criminal is a risk to the security of Americans. This differs from gun ownership because a gun does not commit an act, a gun owner does. It is therefore my belief that federal courts should uphold capital punishment. What does this all mean? It means that moving forward, conservatives should be for broader state's rights and not as much centralized government.