Why do progressives always want the government to intrude in their bedrooms?

Matt Walsh writes:

“Get the government out of my bedroom!!!!!”

 

How many times have you seen that written on the internet, complete with multiple exclamation points so as to emphasize the emphasis of the emphasis of the emphasis?

I actually have not seen it that often, so I was curious and did a quick Google search. The top results came from conservatives and libertarians, with some attributing the phrase to liberals. This is a trick of voicing. Attribute arguments to other people, put words in their mouth, so that you can prove them wrong, without addressing their actual arguments.

 

And there’s a funny thing about that phrase, aside from it’s general asininity: usually it’s trotted out in debates that have absolutely nothing to do with anyone’s bedroom.

There’s abortion, for instance. We’re told that laws against abortion somehow intrude on our “private lives” and “what we do in the bedrooms.” Now, I’m no “women’s health practitioner,” I love sentences that start like this but I’m pretty sure that most people aren’t getting abortions in their bedrooms. They might have sex there, which is an act that no pro-lifer wishes to prohibit. We love sex, actually. We love every part of sex — even and especially it’s potentially life-giving aspects. It’s modern progressives who are the anti-sex curmudgeons. They’ve made it joyless, sterile, and literally lifeless. Do you know this from personal experience, Matt?

And then there’s gay marriage. Again we’re told to “just keep the State out of the bedroom.” But I’m not aware of very many pastors or Justices of the Peace who will perform marriage ceremonies while sitting on your Serta mattress. The argument against gay marriage is an argument against gay marriage — not gay love or gay sex. Maybe some think the latter issues ought to be legally prohibited, but I’ve never encountered anyone who holds that position. Google "US sodomy laws" Matt.

 

Also, the advocacy for marriage equality is not really about privacy, anyway. If that were the case, same-gender couples would be satisfied with domestic partnerships. No, this doesn't have to do with privacy. It has to do with receiving the same treatment as straight people by the state and other institutions, for taxes, healthcare, retirement, and other purposes. It has to do with being able to visit your partner in the hospital and being able to build a family together. So, Matt, you are constructing a false argument here, that does not represent the views of those you rebut.

So, keep the government out of the bedroom? Sure. I can go along with that. But do you know who really vehemently disagrees with this statement? The people who constantly say it.

These people are delusional paranoids. They crawl under their covers at night and scream at the “government” shadows lurking in the closet, which only succeeds in freaking out whoever’s trying to sleep in the room next door. Yes, liberals are known for their rampant mental illness and nightly ravings about the government. These statements are completely accurate. Meanwhile, when the discussion turns to an issue that WOULD involve getting the government involved in “our bedrooms,” suddenly these privacy warriors are shamelessly begging for Uncle Sam to take a seat next to their beds and oversee the proceedings.

This brings us to Obama’s birth control mandate. The Supreme Court, which will eventually decide on this piece of the health care law, recently issued an injunction to temporarily allow some religious groups to continue to practice their faith, and opt out of covering drugs that defy the moral laws of their religion.

 

False. They, themselves, are not "covering drugs." They are providing/paying for health insurance, and health insurance covers and pays for birth control. (The indirectness makes all the difference: an employer could say, "I'm not going to buy condoms for you" but an employer cannot say "I am going to withhold from your salary the money that I presume you will use to buy condoms.")

 

I could mention that birth control has important medical uses unrelated to birth control, such that mere use of these drugs does not necessarily defy the moral laws of any religion (unless that religion is just against medicine, period). But here's the broader point. Everyone has to pay for stuff they don't believe in. That's sociey. The moral laws of my own beliefs are incompatible with war, yet most of my tax money goes to the military.  It sucks. That's life. If religious organizations were to really stop paying for anything that's against their rules, they would have to go much further than birth control. Don't pay for health insurance that allows for treatment of sexually-transmitted infections, alcohol poisioning, drug overdose, drug-related illnesses, etc. And what if people injure themselves from really non-traditional pre-marital sex acts? The religiously-approved health plan would require inquiry into the cause of injuries to ensure they did not result from immoral activities. See how crazy and tyrannical this is getting? Deciding that, among all the many things that religious organizations consider immoral, birth control is the one thing that they should not have to "pay for" (once again, I dispute that they are actuallly really paying for it) is a very arbitrary line to draw, especially considering many women need birth control for other medical reasons.

I don’t know how the Supreme Court will come down on this atrocious thing. They’ve been very wrong many times, and there’s no cause to have any faith in them at all. But I don’t need the robed gods to tell me that the constitution CLEARLY gives the government no authority to require companies to provide, through a third party or otherwise, free contraception. Interesting thing: birth control did not exist when the constitution was written. Neither did the employer-based health care system. It is impossible to say that the constitution is clear about anything as far as health care is concerned. There is no “right” to contraception. There isn’t a constitutional right, nor a natural right, nor a God given right, nor any other sort of right. You might want contraception, you might feel like you need contraception, you might really, really, super-duper, with-a-cherry-on-top yearn for contraception at the pit of your soul, but that doesn’t mean you have a right to it. To claim otherwise is to make a mockery of the doctrine of human rights, and to cheapen and reduce the concept to nothing more than a Christmas wish list of gifts you’d like to receive from the Nanny State. Matt, I think you'd be interested to see what is included on the list of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You don’t have a right to contraception. And I guarantee that you can not even begin to offer a valid defense of the embarrassingly idiotic assertion that free contraception is a right that not only stands beside freedom of religion, but actually supersedes it. That is a great way to form an argument. "There is no way you can defend your position, you stupid idiot." Personal attacks are the highest form of logical thought.

I certainly know one talking point you can’t use: “Get the government out of my bedroom!!!!!”  That is not a talking point. Your opponents do have plenty of talking points you could address, but you did not address any.

Speaking of which, what about that?

If you want the government to subsidize your sexual habits, or pass laws requiring your employer to do the same, then you are clearly asking to sacrifice your sexual privacy. How so? Explain. When I was a teenager, my dad reminded me time and again that my claims to autonomy and “privacy” are severely limited by the fact that my home, clothes, food, and lifestyle are all funded by him. This is not an explanation. It is an inappropriate analogy. It would be appropriate if your father got all of his money from his children in the first place.

“Get out of my room! I want privacy!”

“It’s not your room.”

“Oh, well, I mean, GET OUT THE ROOM YOU BOUGHT AND ASSIGNED TO ME!”

Not as compelling of a case, wouldn’t you agree?

Similarly, “Get out of my bedroom, government!” is a relatively strong statement.

Unfortunately, birth control mandate supporters are actually saying: “Get out of my bedroom, government! But, before you go, leave your wallet on the dresser, ’cause you’re gonna have to pay for all of this, sugar daddy.”  So actually, the insurance companies pay for it. Not the government. And people who use birth control pay both the insurance companies and the government. The government doesn't generate money out of thin air. The mandate is more about equity, and providing things for people in need. Should a person never be allowed to have sex because they are poor? "Yeah, your life is going to be one constant struggle. And we will make sure you never have any opportunity to experience any pleasure, just for kicks."

You see, privacy is expensive. If you want to do something in private, you have to pay for it. Period.  See above.

If you want to be an adult, you have to find a way to fund your own sex life. Someone send that memo to Sandra Fluke.

This birth control mandate represents, I think, the final step in our national transition from a society based on Natural Rights, to one based on ever-changing Artificial Rights. Our Natural Rights are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and given to us by God, as a condition of our humanity. Artificial Rights are randomly declared by a governmental authority, and have no coherent philosophical or moral basis. Most importantly, unlike Natural Rights, which work in harmony with nature and mankind, Artificial Rights are bestowed on one segment of the population at the expense of another. This is how you can discern Artificial from Natural Rights: the former’s existence rests not on freedom, but on tyranny.