Conservatives have no faith in heterosexual marriage, They simply think it can't compete in the marketplace against same-sex marriage.
— LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) February 19, 2015
I won’t speak to the legal side of this issue because I’m not up to speed on it, but I really have to wonder what kind of person would seek to prevent two people who are in a relationship from making whatever arrangements they want to allow the other to visit them in the hospital, and what right the state has to tell hospitals that they cannot honor those requests. Is the GOP hatred for gays so pervasive that they could really be this cold and heartless?
I’m not sure where it says in the Republican “small government” Bible that preventing a person from visiting a hospitalized loved one is something that State has a legitimate interest in. If you truly want to shrink government to the functions you see as most basic- normally defined as defense, foreign policy, and economic policy- then how can you reconcile injecting the influence and power of government into a personal relationship? What interest does the State have in determining who may visit whom in a hospital? How does the idea of a same-sex spouse having visitation rights harm ANY interest of the State…unless the interest of State lies with inflicting unspeakable cruelty upon someone who simply wants to visit a sick loved one?
This is not an issue in which the State has ANY compelling interest. A person visiting a same-sex spouse harms no one- not the State, not the hospital, and certainly no individual…so the only explanation which makes sense is that Scott Walker wants government just small enough to enforce his cruel, hateful, homophobic agenda…and win over socially conservative Christians. It’s not about protecting any State interest- compelling or otherwise. It’s about continuing to enforce a legal framework that makes it clear to the LGBT community that they’re not full partners in society, and that they’ll get to enjoy only those rights “normal” folks- the heterosexual majority- choose to grant them. In short, “You’ll get nothing…and you’ll like it…but don’t get the idea you can pay less in taxes because you have fewer legal rights!!”
It should be a simple equation: You either want smaller, less intrusive government…or you’re a hypocrite who really wants nothing more than for government to enforce your hateful, angry, homophobic agenda. You can’t demand smaller government only to then expect that same government to enforce discrimination against a minority class. That’s not Conservatism, that’s rank hypocrisy. And you certainly can’t expect government to legitimize and enforce discrimination while simultaneously expecting the minority class you hate to pay the same tax rates you do. If you’re going to deny a class of people the full rights and benefits enjoyed by the majority, how can you expect them to pay the same taxes while receiving less for them?
I struggle to understand why so many on the Far Right are so concerned with how some choose to express their sexuality and live their lives. It shouldn’t be anyone’s damned business, least of all the “small government” dreamer who vocally and volubly demand that government “get off our backs.” I really have to wonder what it is Social Conservatives are so terrified of? Perhaps what might come leaping out of their closet if they possessed any degree of honesty and self-knowledge?
If Scott Walker’s example wasn’t offensive enough, there’s also a bill in the Texas Legislature that would require a fetus be represented by an attorney in cases where the mother is on life support. Not exactly a blueprint for getting Big Government out of our lives, eh?
So…how’s that “small government” thing working out for you??
