It's the money, stupid!

I've long maintained that the most important thing that conservatives can focus on is the money available to the US government. "Follow the money" is the inevitable refrain .... it's true, and Jeff at Protein Wisdom has the skinny:

In a quiet way, Barone makes a resounding argument here — and it is one we’ve explored on protein wisdom for several years now: namely, will fiscal and legal conservatism — which to my way of thinking is tied to free enterprise, smaller government, and individual rights (and so can properly be called classical liberalism or even libertarianism) — sell better, in national elections, than the standard rhetoric of “cultural conservatism” that has for years been (in many cases appropriately) tied to the GOP?

My own opinion is [] yes

I'll (try to!) illustrate with teh ghey example, with regards to marriage.

My wife's preacher has told me that the government really got involved with the traditional church role of marriage about 600 years ago, as far as recognizing certain marriages over others. Right or wrong, that's the way it's been for a long time. Right now the government favors, financially, married folk while those who aren't "officially" married (or single) don't get the same benefits. Right or wrong, that's the way it's been for a long time.

But what if being married and gay, or married and straight, or married with more than one spouse, or single had no effect on how you were treated by the government, financially? What if the extent of the government's involvement regarding marriage was to enforce the contractual agreements in whatever marriage you're in, but was neutral with regards to the tax code, or with any other financial consideration? What if there was no money to follow?

Then the social conservatives would be in a bit less-influential position as far as stamping out teh ghey mariage menace .... most folks would say to themselves, "whatever floats yer boat". And if the Unitarians or the Episcopalians or the Pasta-farians wanted to marry gays, who am I to stand in their way? They don't have to answer to me at the end of the world; they just have to stay out of my way and leave me alone.

And that's one of the things that really pisses me off about social conservatives - they would have you do exactly what progressives would have you do, just on the other end of the political spectrum (Value Voters, I'm callin' you out!).

Sad, really ...... Rodney King almost had it right; instead of "can't we just get along" he should have said "can't we just leave each other alone?"

pm