Friday, October 1, 2010

The convenient scapegoat: gays

WHat do social conservatives want? David Boaz comments about the language linking "family values" to economic wellbeing:
When Huckabee says that “a breakdown of the basic family structure” is causing poverty — and thus a demand for higher government spending — he knows that he’s really talking about unwed motherhood, divorce, children growing up without fathers, and the resulting high rates of welfare usage and crime. ...

But take a look at the key issues of the chief social-conservative group, the Family Research Council — 7 papers on abortion and stem cells, 5 on gays and gay marriage, 1 on divorce. ...

Why all the focus on issues that would do nothing to solve the problems of “breakdown of the basic family structure” and “the high cost of a dysfunctional society”? Well, solving the problems of divorce and unwed motherhood is hard. And lots of Republican and conservative voters have been divorced. A constitutional amendment to ban divorce wouldn’t go over very well with even the social-conservative constituency. Far better to pick on a small group, a group not perceived to be part of the Republican constituency, and blame them for social breakdown and its associated costs.
But you won’t find your keys on Main Street if you dropped them on Green Street, and you won’t reduce the costs of social breakdown by keeping gays unmarried and not letting them adopt orphans.

1 comment:

JCF said...

NPR did a story a couple days ago on the sharp (recent) decline in marriage rates (as well as the continuing rise, across all demographics, of out-of-wedlock births).

You KNOW who will be blamed: "Teh Gays" (and not the Bush-created economic collapse!)

I admit, I am perplexed by this kind of (het) thinking: "It costs too much to get married, so we'll put it off . . . but we won't put off having a baby." Hello???? :-0
[If one would budget more for a wedding, than 18+ years of raising a kid . . . y'all be SRSLY effed up (in math and/or priorities)!]