Gays should be careful what they ask for
By Mark Luedtke
Because government is a coercive institution, every action it takes divides people into winners and losers. It used to be if one person wanted to buy a fuel-efficient car, they did so freely and were happy about it. If another person wanted to buy a high-performance car, they did so freely and were happy about. Everybody was happy.
Then government regulated high-performance cars, making them more expensive, and it subsidized hybrids and electric cars to make them cheaper. Government stole money from the people who purchased high performance cars and gave it to people who purchased fuel-efficient cars, creating conflict.
Government also creates conflicts regarding marriage. If government had no role in marriage, gays would be free to marry and they would be happy. Supporters of traditional marriage would be free to explain why gay marriage was not the same as heterosexual marriage to their children, for whatever reason, and they would be happy. But because government coerces control of marriage, it’s created another conflict.
A misunderstanding of so-called government benefits fuels this conflict. For example, gays are unhappy they can’t pass Social Security benefits to their partners, but Social Security is not a benefit. Social Security is money stolen from taxpayers. The problem isn’t that gays can’t inherit Social Security. The problem is government steals money for Social Security, skims a bunch off the top to enrich the ruling class, then redistributes the rest to buy votes for politicians. Receiving stolen property is not a benefit.
But I never hear gays talking about the downside of government getting in the middle of their marriages. And I’m not just talking about the marriage tax. Gays are inviting the most corrupt and destructive institution ever created into their bedrooms and every aspect of their relationships. Government is destroying traditional marriage at an alarming rate, so it makes no sense for gays to want the same. This bizarre need for paternal approval despite its overwhelming downside makes me wonder if daddy issues aren’t the major factor influencing people to choose to be gay.
Openly gay libertarian, a student of Austrian Economics and a regular writer for Antiwar.com, Justin Raimondo advocates a libertarian case against gay marriage. Raimondo rejected the standard arguments against gay marriage: “None of these arguments – to my mind, at least – make the least amount of sense, and they have all been singularly ineffective in beating back the rising tide of sentiment in favor of allowing same-sex couples the ‘right’ to marry. The problem with these arguments is that they are all rooted in religion or in some secular concept of morality alien to American culture in the 21st century – a culture that is characterized by relativism, impiety and a preoccupation with other matters that make this issue less pressing than it otherwise might be.”
One of the ways government has undermined traditional marriage is by undermining religion in America. The state declares it can solve every problem, but that could only be true if it had godlike powers. It encourages people to call their congressmen – and congressmen pretend to care – instead of talking to their pastor. In this environment, appeals to religion are ineffective.
Raimondo continued with an argument that applies to every marriage: “The imposition of a legal framework on the intricate web of relationships that have previously existed in the realm of freedom – that is, outside the law and entirely dependent on the trust and compliance of the individuals involved – would not only be a setback for liberty but a disaster for those it supposedly benefits: gay people themselves.”
Raimondo also made what I believe is the most powerful argument – that gay marriage can never be the same as traditional marriage: “Marriage evolved because of the existence of children: without them, the institution loses its biological, economic and historical basis, its very reason for being.” He calls gay marriage an oxymoron. As heterosexuals abandon marriage, Raimondo calls growing heterosexual support for gay marriage, “… contempt for gays and for the institution of marriage itself. Marriage is an institution designed by heterosexuals for heterosexuals. Why should gay people settle for their cast-off hand-me-downs?”
Traditional marriage is the social reflection of the biological imperative to procreate and continue the species even if partners don’t have children. It enabled the passage of property from parents to children. I don’t pretend to know what motivates gays to marry, but it’s not that.
Raimondo described how gays started as an oppressed minority: “The earliest gay-rights organizations, such as the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis, sought to legalize homosexual activity, then illegal per se.” Then he explained gays have transformed into oppressors: “Instead of battling the state, they began to use the state against their perceived enemies. As it became fashionable and politically correct to be ‘pro-gay,’ a propaganda campaign was undertaken in the public schools, epitomized by the infamous ‘Rainbow Curriculum’ and the equally notorious tome for tots Heather Has Two Mommies.”
Thanks to government, we’re stuck with this conflict, and the marriages of both heterosexuals and gays suffer.
The views and opinions expressed in Conspiracy Theorist are the views and/or opinions of the author and do not reflect the views and/or opinions of the Dayton City Paper or Dayton City Media and are published strictly for entertainment purposes only.
Mark Luedtke is an electrical engineer with a degree from the University of Cincinnati and currently works for a Dayton attorney. He can be reached at MarkLuedtke@DaytonCityPaper.com.