That simply is not true. Like any group, the founders were pretty diverse. In fact, many of them wanted to outlaw slavery from the very beginning (that flies in the face of your assertion that they wanted to protect "land-owning" males.
To get the South to sign on, the north agreed not to ban the importation of slaves until 1808. In 1807, the Congress pass the law banning the importation of slaves.
As you know if you are a student of history and the Constitution, the anti-slavery states did not have the votes to end slavery until the South seceded. But prior to the South rejoining in 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed, since they were not part of the union until 1870, they could not stop it. These actions are not those of land-owning white males trying to protect their property, but rather hardheaded abolitionists having to deal with the reality at hand.
You are putting spin on history that just isn't supported by the facts. The "breeding farms" were the product of the slave importation ban. It was far easier and more profitable to buy ships full of adult slaves than incur the cost of raising them for years until they could be put to work. That is why illegal slave importation continued even though it was a capital offense to do so.
I live MLK's dream. My wife is Asian, five of my grandchildren are either half African or half Haitian. I raised my children to see character rather than color and that translated to two thirds of them that have married, marrying outside their race as I have. Only one child is married to another white person.
You misunderstand classical liberalism (which I embrace). Every individual has unalienable rights that not even government has a right to infringe on other to protect the rights of others. In addition, our Constitution grants specific civil rights which have been expanded overtime.
Regardless, of who is in power, the majority or minority legislation, we have a limited government, which means they are constrained to try to avoid infringing on individual rights and to accommodate individual rights as much as possible where some infringement cannot be avoided.
As a conservative, I support gay marriage though honestly, I would prefer we use the term civil unions for all government contractual relationships (I know many heterosexual couples that have "married" in church, but do not want their marriage governed by the state so they have not filed as such).
Abortion is a totally different issue. As a conservative I fully support a woman's right to her body and the unborn child's right to his or her body. As such, this conflict in rights is precisely where the people and courts have to seek a compromise recognizing that unless the woman's life is in danger, denying her an abortion compromises her right to pursue happiness, while allowing her to have an abortion denies the unborn baby his or her life.
Progressives refuse to acknowledge the baby is alive even though biologists and medicine recognize the baby as a "human life". Roe v Wade was "cute". It recognized the unborn baby as a human life but decided "the state" had no grounds to intervene until a baby became a legal person (which it said was when it became viable). This decision was arbitrary by a group of unelected judges. The recent decision says such determinations should be made by an elected body of citizens since it involves both parties having to compromise regarding their rights and another person's rights.
Again, don't confuse what the government can do and can't do. The 14th Amendment established equal rights for all citizens. Prior to desegregation, southern states argued that separate schools were "equal". The courts said the evidence suggests they were not and so it acted to protect the individual rights of African Americans. In contrast, today African Americans are advocating for segregated dorms and even segregated graduations. Why are these legal? Because it is hard to claim they are not "equal" even though they are separate since African Americans are asking for them and so far, whites have not sued over the issue. If they did, white would have to prove that somehow segregated dorms created unequal living conditions.
Regarding social security, people can opt out of them. For example, teachers are not part of social security. The Amish don't participate in social security. I don't have a problem with government administering programs that people want to be part of of, I just wish it did a better job.
As for the "Don't say Gay" law, as a parent I fully support the idea that children under age 8 should not be taught about sexuality. I don't know how many children you have, but I have 5. They grow up pretty quick these days, but for most of them not learning about birds and the bees until middle school unless a parent decides to do so seems like a fair request by parents, since by law we are responsible for raising children. We are also responsible for teaching them right and wrong. Guess what, all of my children are grown, they all have gay friends and none of them feel they were deprived not learning about gay relationships in primary school from their teachers.
I do support sex education at higher grades. I also think children should be taught gun safety. Most Americans will engage in sex and hold a gun at some point in their lives and understanding how to engage in those things safely is important. As an aside, I also think all children should learn to cook, reconcile a checking account, and many other basic tasks that all humans have to do to be adults.
Finally, with respect to a social safety net in general, nearly all Americans support a social safety net. We may disagree on how robust it should be and what entitlements should be in it. But I am confused why you think a social safety net violates individual freedom. It would if you were compelled to use it.
I rejected Medicaid benefits, and I was allowed to when my income dropped during the Great Recession due to stock losses. I remained a multimillionaire and it did not feel right to collect an "entitlement" funded by hard working Americans when I was relatively well off. Do you think I should have taken the benefit I was entitled to... or should government ensure the social safety net payments go to people that really need them.
