A liberal sent me a message the other day: “The reason why gays want to get married is because it represents something concrete and allows them the same rights as straight couples. The government at this point does not recognize gay marriage as marriage, which has led to many problems.”
It isn’t so much a case of the government not recognizing gay “marriage” as marriage as it is a case of the government not recognizing a word to mean something other than its definition.
But, without even realizing it, the liberal had identified the problem all on his own: the government. He was probably so accustomed to hearing the media and his elected officials praise government that it didn’t occur to him that the government could ever be the source of his ills. (Speaking of, did you hear President Obama over the weekend at Ohio State University promising the low-information graduates there is no reason to be wary of government because it is a benevolent force that they’d all do well to trust unquestionably and let into their lives?)
So the liberal identified the problem but did not recognize it. And what’s the very simple solution to his problem? If we got the government out of the habit of recognizing marriages gay or normal, since it is from nothing that the government derives its asserted authority on the matter, the liberal would have nothing to complain about.
He went on to voice his complaint over hospitals’ visitation policies and that there should be laws to force hospitals to allow gay couples visitation rights. (But don’t worry; liberalism isn’t akin to fascism or anything.)
Why do liberals seek to impose their wills on private entities? A hospital is a business and should be run however its owner wants it run. If it were not a business, it would not make any profit, and without profit it would not be able to better itself, expand its services, and thus help more people.
When I told this to the liberal, he suggested I want gay people to die. Liberals only know how to use their emotions, which is why they can jump to such extremes in arguing.
And finally the liberal made this sarcastic point:
“If a gay person has to go to the hospital if they’re in a car crash and unconscious or something, they could just ask the ambulance driver [to] take [him] to a hospital that allows gay visitors. Oh wait. They’re unconscious. They should have to die alone because the staff won’t let their partner in.”
In such emergency situations, it is typical hospital policy only to allow family into the ER. A “partner” is not family, by law. (Again, get government out of marriage and just treat marriages as a legal contracts and this problem vanishes.)
But still, I considered his point and pictured myself in such a scenario. I don’t like the idea of my wife being unable to visit me if I’m on my deathbed. But I also don’t like the idea of the government imposing its will, whether it’s a liberal will or a conservative will, on a private entity.
So I have resolved to do the following the next time I move to a new area, and I advise liberals do the same: I will take it upon myself to find out the visitation policy of the hospitals in whatever candidate city my family and I will have nominated to settle into in the future, and if I don’t like the hospitals’ visitation policies, I will choose somewhere else to live. Taking responsibility really isn’t difficult.