I spotted this piece by Brandon McGinley in the National Review yesterday. Given that so much of the opposition to marriage equality is driven by the (flatly wrong and disproven) theory that gay parents are less adequate than straight parents, it was no surprise to see the author raise this argument again:
Same-sex marriage’s implication that the bearing and rearing of children can be neatly separated from the biology of children leaves us with no ground on which to object to any person’s or group’s satisfaction of the desire to have children of their own. [emphasis mine]
Yikes. Because our goal is to preserve our ability to “object” to a particular person’s qualifications to be a parent? With the obvious caveat for abuse and other situations where intervention is necessary to protect a child, this is a scary statement, especially coming from a conservative who understands the potential tyranny of the state.
If the government can decide who is worthy of marriage based on who is likely to be a “good” parent, this logic can be applied far more broadly. Natural births are dangerous, so let’s mandate C-sections. Babies are healthier if mothers eat fish instead of chicken, so let’s make them send their daily food logs to the FDA. Next, let’s start regulating how people take care of their children. Let’s ban home schooling, since public schools are “better.” Let’s let the government visit your home weekly to determine if you have appropriate smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, child-proofing, and other protections to deserve children. Let’s ban letting your children walk six blocks to school without a chaperone. Let’s make sure the government controls what food your third grader is allowed to eat on school grounds. It’s a nanny-state liberal’s dream come true. Continue reading