Why not? One is the innate right of everyone to defend themselves and their loved ones against oppression and murder. The other is a piece of a paper that gives you some tax breaks and lets you visit someone in the hospital. The entire Bill of Rights was considered by the founding fathers to be a list of natural rights, so I'm not sure why you're arguing that the 1st and 4th Amendments are not. They are all rights espoused by the concept of liberty; in that I can speak and be secure in my property, so long as it does not cause real harm to others.
I admit I was too narrow in claiming marriage to be a religious institution only, but it has also not been a government issue through history; as well, you cannot argue that marriage has not typically been the product of religious ceremony in almost all societies. Mostly not until modern society have governments started treating people differently based on their marriage status. My point was that "marriage" itself is not in the Constitution, and therefore is not something any branch of the federal government should be weighing on in. I agree that all federal definition of "straight" or any kind of marriage should be removed, because it is out of the federal purview. The federal government should only be doing a few things: Treaties, defense, inter-state commerce, collecting minimal taxes, protecting Constitutional rights from the states for those articles which are incorporated against the states by SCOTUS case law. Everything else should be a state matter, and to be honest, if you don't like the state you're in, work to change the political climate, or move freely to a state that is a better match.
I didn't state Ron Paul could unilaterally get rid of the IRS, but it is on his platform and moving to a simpler and more fair tax system is definitely something that has been gaining in support over the years.
How do you not believe that Obama is on a war path with Iran? As I said, we have already committed acts of war against Iran by invading their sovereign air space with drones. If China started flying drones over your city to "keep an eye on things", would you consider it an act of war? Thanks for dismissing the entire discussion though because you "don't believe it" and "it's a conspiracy".
Fear mongering? Read on, my friend; this is not from a conspiracy newsletter: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57318666/tsa-expands-from-airports-to-tenn-highways/
There are tons of stories, if you look for them, of police presence in schools, the militarization of the police, police arresting and charging people for recording them... these activities have just started in the past 10 years. I guess it's true that if they whittle away at your rights slowly enough, a lot of people just won't notice.