Theocracy, it’s the new libertarianism!

23 Apr 2012 01:45 pm
Posted by: Donna

Center of Arizona Policy director Cathi Herrod’s Sunday op-ed is a pitch to libertarians to support discrimination against gays because, freedom! “Support of tried-and-true tradition of man-woman nuptials will grow.”

Maintaining one-man, one-woman marriage fits perfectly into libertarian philosophy:

1. Marriage benefits the entire community and lowers dependence on government programs.

2. Only the government is in the position to enforce marriage contracts.

3. Changing the definition of marriage would present a great threat to our First Amendment religious freedoms.

Not only does marriage create a stable environment for men, women and children, study after study shows that marriage between a man and a woman creates wealth and provides children with the best opportunity to succeed.

That looks an awful lot like social engineering to me but maybe some libertarians will go for it. Oh wait, some “libertarians” do! But they’re guys like Rand Paul and Jeff Flake, who were already on board the theocracy train. (Yes, handsome amiable “moderate” Flake supports a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.) So who’s Cathi Herrod trying to persuade here? Well, it’s obvious that she’s latching onto this year’s GOP election theme of Obama The Black Welfare President and weaving homophobia into that.

It’s easy to understand then why Arizonans, including libertarians, believe in marriage — married moms and dads raising children are critical to limited government. Married parents are far more likely to support themselves and their families, instead of depending on government welfare.

And children raised in an environment with a married mom and dad have the best opportunity to succeed and learn personal responsibility, meaning they are less likely to grow up and depend on government programs.

Actually, children growing up with married parents of any gender are more likely to be growing up in homes with financial stability. Gay couples, as it turns out, have demonstrated themselves to be very fit parents. And marriage follows education and a good income, not the other way around. If Cathi Herrod really wanted to increase the incidence of straight marriage, then she’d be pushing for higher wages and less expensive college tuition. Poor people value marriage. They just have a much better grasp on their own economic reality than Cathi does.

Herrod’s entire piece is basically dogwhistling to bigots who use religion or the “free market” to justify discrimination and oppression. This is definitely the Ron/Rand Paul type.

Just look at what has happened in Massachusetts when the courts redefined marriage. Second-graders were required to read a book called “The King and King” about two young princes who marry each other.

When parents said they would rather not have this content taught to their children and would prefer to address these issues at home, the state said, “Too bad,” and made it mandatory reading for every student. That’s more government control of our lives, not less.

Or take the photographer in New Mexico who was forced to pay a $6,700 fine because she turned down a job to take photos at a same-sex partnership ceremony. That’s government dictating what a private business owner can and can’t do.

Every democratic movement in recent American history has met with similar objections – What about the children?? Why can’t I discriminate if it’s my business?? – blah, blah, blah. But we knew Cathi Herrod was a bigot, as evidenced by how she and her CAP army descended on the Legislature last month to quash an anti-bullying bill because it would protect LGBT kids. Again, I don’t know whom she thinks she’s selling her crap to who wasn’t already buying it.

8 Comments

  1. Comment by Timmys Cat on April 24, 2012 12:17 pm

    Ya missed this howler-

    If marriage were to be redefined, the libertarian adage of “live and let live” would go out the window.

    St Cathis logic is honed to a fine curve-

    Many of our most basic legal systems — from inheritance to property to child custody — are tied to the institution of marriage.

    Sooooo, by denying marriage rights those thou does not deem righteous, you are encouraging lawlessness? Children of unwed mothers have no rights to their fathers estate? If parents get divorced the state gets custody?
    I prehaps naievely assumed whatever the convenient meaning of a libertarian was at the moment is that less is more. Soo then less restrictions on legal marriage contracts would mean less legal headaches, less unadopted foster kids, less court battles over estates and medical care.
    Silly me, I geuss Ayatollah Cathi with her squishy logic and opportunistic unsubstantiated definitions knows best. For me. For you. For kids. For women. For men. For the state. For the country. For Christianity. For Jesus. For God.

    Must be lonely work.

    i

  2. Comment by Timmys Cat on April 24, 2012 12:18 pm

    Frackn tag fail.

  3. Comment by Timmys Cat on April 24, 2012 12:28 pm

    Yeah Yeah

    Ayatollah Herrod. Much better.

    Iranizona?

  4. Comment by Mike Slater on April 24, 2012 6:25 pm

    What a concept, one man one women. Hard for liberals to understand.

  5. Comment by Timmys Cat on April 24, 2012 8:00 pm

    They really do write themselves.

  6. Comment by Alan Scott on April 26, 2012 6:21 pm

    Timmy’s cat,

    ” Ayatollah ”

    Such a vicious kitty .

  7. Comment by Michael Powers on April 28, 2012 7:46 am

    Really? I don’t see why anyone would care who marries whom. The concept of marriage and family has changed numerous times over the centuries. The world didn’t end.

    Wanna know why I don’t oppose gay marriage?

    Because I’m a confident heterosexual.

  8. Comment by Timmys Cat on April 28, 2012 5:32 pm

    Hee -

    Favorite scene from In and Out.

    Howard Brackett: [D]o I look like a homosexual?
    Tom Halliwell: Would you walk for me?

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a comment