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.