By Joseph Backholm, Family Policy Institute
What do Obamacare and same-sex “marriage” have in common? More than you might think.
In both cases, people created well intentioned policies that ignored immutable laws of the universe. In both cases, support was generated by intentionally withholding relevant information and accusing those who asked critical questions of wanting to harm their neighbors.
Of course we hope everyone will have high quality health care.
But Obamacare couldn’t deliver on its promises because the idea that you can provide insurance for 30 million people who don’t currently have insurance, while reducing the cost of insurance for those who do have it by $2,500 a year, all while reducing the federal deficit violates economic realities. Nothing is free.
Of course we don’t want the government telling people who they can form relationships with.
But same-sex “marriage” can’t succeed because it is based on premise that, with respect to marriage and parenting, men and women are interchangeable; a belief that is biologically, physiologically, hormonally, and neurologically false.
Still, unlike Obamacare, there has been a feeling, even in conservative circles, that same-sex “marriage” is here to stay.
Maybe that was presumptuous.
The now well chronicled ouster of Brendan Eich from his job as CEO of Mozilla for making a 2008 contribution to California’s Proposition 8 campaign could be a watershed moment in this entire conversation.
Through his forced resignation, the tolerance assassins have (once again) served notice that if you want a high profile job in the private sector, you have to agree with them about marriage and sexuality-or at least never have done something public that would indicate otherwise.
It’s the kind of “accountability” that every totalitarian government adopts.
The public has soured on Obamacare because reality is not conforming to the promises made.
Could the same be true for the same-sex “marriage” movement as well?