The right-wing: Swinging both ways on the marriage amendment

Earlier this week in this space, I called out the inhabitants of the state’s “libertarian” think tanks for their deafening silence on the the marriage bigotry amendment advanced by their chums in the state legislature:   

“Isn’t there one brave “libertarian” amongst you with the courage to stand up and speak out publicly, directly and forcefully for freedom and against the tyranny on display in the North Carolina General Assembly this week?  Just one?”

Yesterday, there was a “reply” of sorts in the form of a very brief article from the Locke Foundation’s Director of Legal and Regulatory Affairs.

According to the piece, Raleigh’s News & Observer is wrong to attack the marriage limitation amendment as a “big government” infringement on privacy rights because marriage itself amounts to big government. Thus, by limiting marriage rights, conservatives in the General Assembly are actually halting the spread of big government.

We’re not making this up.

Apparently, it is the author’s actual position (as well as one of his colleague’s — whose 2004 article on the subject is cited)  that state-sanctioned marriage itself should be abolished. This is from the article received from these folks this morning:

“In the marriage amendment debate, the underlying problem for gays is the institution of marriage itself in this country. Marriage is not simply the ability to get married in a ceremony where two people agree to spend their lives with each other. If it were, gays already would have the same rights as everyone else. Instead, marriage has become about government-benefits (and other benefits, such as societal recognition) that arise from receiving a government-issued marriage license.”

Don’t you just love these guys? This is the same kind of nonsensical jibberish that was spouted on the House floor by the delusional Rep. Glen Bradley – i.e.:  “The problem isn’t with the law, it’s with you silly gays who want to partake in all of that terrible, big government oppression that everyone else makes the mistake of falling for.”

Of course, if the Locke people were truly consistent and said this kind of stuff plainly, clearly and all of the time, one might be tempted to cut them at least a little slack. But, of course, that’s not the case.

Instead, even as they’re issuing tepid and unclear statements like the latest, they’re breathlessly “reporting” every word uttered on the subject by their pals Rep. Stam and Sen. Forrester and working hand-in-glove with the bigoted theocrats who will be pushing the amendment between now and May. 

In other words, it appears that when it comes to marriage, the Locke people swing both ways: they want all of the political benefits of allying with bigots, but none of the intellectual responsibility that ought to come with being hypocrites.

Load More Related Articles
Load More By Rob Schofield
Load More In Uncategorized

Top Stories from NCPW

  • News
  • Commentary

Chemours – the billion-dollar company responsible for contaminating the drinking water of hundreds of thousands of… [...]

A new federal Inspector General's report found that ReBuild NC couldn't provide "reasonable assurance" that $2.5… [...]

Shaletta Ryans went to court Monday afternoon without even having to leave jail. She appeared in… [...]

For the better part of the past century, the American electric power system evolved around large,… [...]

‘The migrants are human beings, and we’ve got to treat them like human beings. They are… [...]

The post Democracy on fire. appeared first on NC Policy Watch. [...]

Six years. That’s how long it will have been, come next month, since Hurricane Matthew raked… [...]


You may republish this article online or in print under our Creative Commons license. You may not edit or shorten the text, you must attribute the article to The Pulse and you must include the author’s name in your republication.

If you have any questions, please email [email protected]


Creative Commons License AttributionCreative Commons Attribution
The right-wing: Swinging both ways on the marriage amendment