My politico-philosophical and ideological progression (from 2004 - present)

Notes
1. circa 2012 : some sections of the Tea Party gradually shifted focus to and became more vocal about populist nationalism -- i.e., militaristic posturing & economic protectionism. I do not associate myself with these ideas. However, I continue to retain immense gratitude for the original movement and its current champions, Ted Cruz, Justin Amash etc., as profoundly influential in my political maturation. 2. While I am a libertarian, my Patriot and social-conservative ideological roots are influential in the following manner: (A) I am still Patriotic to the American idea (Jefferson, Madison, anti-Hamilton) and the Constitution -- not to the corrupt crony-capitalist, welfare-warfare-statist federal government that has co-opted the media and academia, and (B) I am socially conservative personally, but not politically, esp. in the areas of drug policy, censorship, non-violent "offenses", consensual adult relationships, etc. In all these areas, I propose complete liberty -- live and let live. I may personally disagree with and find abhorrent someone else's beliefs and views in these areas of personal lifestyle choice -- but, I will defend to the death their natural rights to them. Legislated morality is tyranny. The definition of marriage in government may or may not be done at any level (local, State or Federal); but, if done, must be completely disconnected from any economic incentive -- i.e. tax breaks and civil benefits (such as guardianship, visitation and powers of attorney). All tax breaks for marriage must be removed. Or, conversely, all tax breaks given to married couples must also be extended to all cohabiting (married or not, incl. non-sexual) relationships, such as, for e.g. roommates. Civil benefits, similarly, must be extended to all cohabiting (married or not, incl. non-sexual) relationships, such as, for e.g. roommates. Furthermore, preferably, marriage should not be defined at all -- at any level of civic government. However, if it is defined, it must be done by the people (legislature(s)) and not by executive or judicial fiat. States and localities are free to overturn the definitions promulgated from above or elsewhere, within their jurisdictions. Even then, one would have to carefully construct a rational, well-reasoned and reasonable legal defense for possibly excluding some consensual adult relationships (e.g. polyandry, polygamy) and including others (e.g. monogamy), from the perspective of the Equal Protection Clause, in the 14th Amendment, esp. given that some arrangements of the former variety are more prevalent historically than some arrangements of the latter variety. Lastly, abortion is murder. It has nothing to do with being socially conservative. Any government that allows abortion de jure is legally sanctioning murder of a specific kind -- targeting the most vulnerable population in society.