If you want government involved in social issues, consider why that is?  What personal agenda are you attempting to thrust onto society for your comfort?

Free Market solutions can manage social issues which concern all of us, while upholding individual freedom. 

Asking government to be involved in social issues is asking for favor and entitlement; social issues are not the role of government.

Milton Friedman once said that the only reason we have as much freedom as we do now is because of the inefficiency of government.

If you think government should or will solve social issues, you're a RINO - you are motivated by personal agenda at a cost of individual freedoms to others.  Society doesn't exist for you or I. 

Personal comfort is not a right. 

Sympathy, empathy, personal experiences are not synonyms for legislation.

Demonizing the ACLU to further your personal agenda brings no credibility.

You mean this ACLU:

2004: trial regarding allegations of Rush Limbaugh's drug abuse, the ACLU argued that his privacy should not have been compromised by allowing law enforcement examination of his medical records

1997: Internet Free Speech in ACLU v. Reno, the court struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which censored the Internet by banning "indecent" speech.  Although this was a major First Amendment victory for the information age, the battle continues; the ACLU often finds itself defending online free speech from further assault.  (one reason we have the ability to speak openly on blogs)

1986: The ACLU also defended Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, whose conviction was tainted by coerced testimony — a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.

In 1973: the ACLU was the first major national organization to call for the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, giving as reasons the Nixon administration's violations of civil liberties. 

In 1967: the ACLU successfully argued against state bans on interracial marriage, in the case of Loving v. Virginia.

1954: Brown v. Board of Education: the ACLU, having long supported the legal battle for equal education, celebrated a majority victory when the Supreme Court declared that racially segregated schools were in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in a case brought by the NAACP

The favor and entitlement ADF screams about the ACLU doing, is exactly what ADF is doing: seeking favor from legislators or the courts to support their personal specific view of life, what choices a person should make and how to live life, even to the assumption of existence – they believe and you best, too!  What happened to the founders idea of freedom of the conscious mind to decide for self?

Crosses on mountains that are on government property utilizing pluralistic tax dollars does not limit government, it expands its reach and favors one religious view over another.  Private property, no problem, no one cares.  Government property – it’s gotta go.  Society doesn’t exist for you!

Just because we haven’t developed past certain discriminations, doesn’t mean the courts aren’t accurately reversing some of the bullying that has gone on with regard to the upholding personal freedom. 

Slavery, suffrage, interracial marriage, discrimination – any of these sound familiar, all “traditions” at one time in our society, all tolerated by society, some even using the bible as credential to continue or further it.

Finally, the speaker had the Obama-audacity to say that government has interest in the family propagating to help pay taxes and fund our society.   How absurd!  This is antithetical to freedom, free choice, free markets and limited government.  Not to mention bigoted – there are lots of variants when it comes to creating families through a variety of methods. This myopic view of life is breathtaking.

Society existed long before any government came upon it to tax it and spend like thieves. If government “cannot run its household on the liberal allowance it receives” from the current tax payers then it is the legislators responsibility to live within their means and cut spending.

The ONLY reason a person would make such a declaration is to impose a subjective and ideological view of the world upon everyone else – just like liberal democrats.  

In so much as your personal choice does not infringe on a personal choice of another without consent – without contract – without agreement, it’s not the governments business, nor mine, nor yours. In free markets we call this: choice.  

If you are asking courts and legislators to favor your religion, your definition of marriage, or any other social agenda for which you disagree about the free choice of another American, you live in hypocrisy toward freedom itself.  

No one should be listening to or be lectured by an organization that seeks its own personal agenda antithetical to freedom of the individual all the while demonizing the ACLU or any other organization.

Both organizations need to clean up their acts. 

The Alliance Defense Fund can start that self-evaluation leading to self-correction (long before the ACLU ever will) by seeking to get government out of our lives, out of marriage, out of religion, out of education, out of abortion, out of health care and all other social issues where government has no business.  Do that and it takes away the weapon of hypocrisy that liberals easily wield at Republicans.   Unless, of course, demanding favor for subjective ideology, overstepping the Constitution and insisting others believe as they believe, is their goal

With this kind of thinking, Conservatives are fast becoming liberals with religion – and guess what? People are onto the scam. 

Limited government, personal & fiscal responsibility, safety of the nation – no one can argue these foundations who does not reveal himself anti-American. 

If the ADF wants to fight battles, then fight the battle for equality of freedom by getting government out of it all so that free people can make free choices and stop looking for endorsements from government.

Are people really getting upset over the potential of marijuana being legal?

People huff paint and toxic fumes from household cleaners.    

Adjudicated kids I worked with used to drink Nyquil, vomit the syrup and walk around high for hours – they were called Nyquil parties. All available over the counter.

People drink and have alcohol available to them 24 hours a day – ever been to Vegas?  They have an open bottle policy!  Where’s the outrage!  Where’s the contempt!  Call the Mayor!

Are you really this naive?   

If the problem is concern that people will “do more of it”, so what? 

The concern is always that one behavior is a gateway to other behaviors.  

It must be assumed then that drinking water leads to alcoholism. 

When people think it's the "other guy" who is too irresponsible to make choice for self, you can count on the accuser being the one who is just as irresponsible; it used to be called: projection.

Who cares if someone wants to take drugs?  It’s not your life to decide for another.  If safety is your concern, you have to face reality that at any point in time lots of people are walking around the world high as a kite.

If you really want to make sure that certain jobs, where accuracy is most important when it comes to the responsibility of another’s life, make policy for those jobs within those companies that a daily drug test is required.  

Frankly, it’s not a bad idea to have pilots take a drug test or alcohol breathalyzer test before getting in the cockpit, but no one seems to be worried about that.  Nor is it out of reach to have health care workers test for drugs; I went to school with a nurse who was a recovering drug addict and work was where she got her “loot”.  Her stories of rampant drug abuse were shocking. 

Police, military and any other number of official positions carry weapons aren’t given such tests on a daily or hourly basis, but the law of averages tells you that at least some of those people are high on something.   Folks don’t check-in to rehab not for nothin'.

Trying to control behavior is like trying to herd cats.  Responsibility compels those who make choice to be able to respond to the choice.  If drug use is such a concern then compel companies with high-risk jobs to demand regular and frequent drug tests, and then get out of the way.  That's how free markets work: demand and supply.

Reality is that everyone has distaste for everyone else’s behavior and choices, be assured of that.  Trying to control behavior of others only reveals you as arrogant, controlling, and manipulative and eventually, a hypocrite as your choices will show incongruence.

Start questioning yourself as to why you are so concerned. Where is freedom and personal responsibility?

Is it about your children? 

Who then is responsible for teaching their children the consequences for such choices? 

Can you police your child’s every choice?  No.  You can arm them with as much information as possible and accept the risk you took by having a child to begin with. If this comment offends you, consider reality: you chose to have a child knowing the world around you.  Attempting to control others for your personal comfort?  Society doesn't exist for you.

Unless you are planning on following your kid around 24 hours, then you better make certain you teach your children what development of personal responsibility is all about.   It would be in your self-interest to teach accountability, responsibility and outcomes.

Consider how much information is available to you as an adult that you never look up, research or inquire about before making choices which could clearly alter your life.  You're not teaching that negligence to your kids, are you?

If you’re willing to take the risk of indulging in drugs, alcohol, and the like, no freedom loving American would stop you.  

The difference in any choice is that it is only made with the consent of those with whom it affects.  Don't make a choice you can't respond to.

If it doesn’t affect you, why do you care so much?