Should You Have To Reproduce To Vote?

The struggle over voting rights has gotten even more personal for me over the past week.

I am a stepparent.  Correction:  I am a proud stepparent.  I have two wonderful, grown-up stepchildren who I have helped raised since they were in single-digit ages (and I knew them for three years prior to my marriage).  They live successful, accomplished lives, which include giving my wife and me two wonderful children-in-law and three wonderful grandchildren.  Because my wife and I got married in our thirties, and because we were financially strapped at the time we got married, we decided not to bring any biological children into the world.  We considered this to have been a sensible, mature, responsible decision, and I can state for a fact that I have never regretted it.  Likewise, I know for a fact that many other people in similar situations have made similar choices.  Not for a moment did they think that doing so made them a lesser human being, and certainly not a lesser citizen of a constitutional republic, with a lesser right to cast a vote.

Try telling that, however, to the likes of J.D. Vance, or Sean Hannity, or a whole host of yahoos on the starboard side of politics who have now decided those who have made the choice not to reproduce a disqualification from participating in the process of deciding what kind of government our nation should have.  You heard that right, folks:  they don't think that I should have the right to vote.

Their reasoning is transparently specious; the argument, to the extent that one can call it that, by not reproducing, we who are "childless" are not making a meaningful contribution to society and, therefore, should not be allowed to have any say whatsoever in choosing its future direction.  One scarcely knows where to being in taking the tortured logic of this argument apart.  Are there not more than one ways to contribute to society?  Are there not more than one ways to care for and otherwise promote the interests of children?  Indeed, as people like me demonstrate, is there not more than one way to form a family?

Essentially, as is the case with so much of modern conservative rhetoric, this is fundamentally yet another piece of ad hominem B.S., directed at a constituency--the biologically childless--perceived as being too liberal in nature and therefore to be prevented from inflicting the logic of their views on those who do not wish to accept it.  The character--or lack thereof--in this specious point of view is exposed, along with the absence of any true moral or political principle, with a few simple examples.  Let's take teachers; given the amount of time and energy they put into instructing children, should they be given an extra vote if they also choose to reproduce?  And what about clergy who take and maintain vows of celibacy; should they lose the right to vote based on an exercise of First Amendment rights conservatives love to defend?  Whoops, can't do that; a good way to lose a lot of conservative votes.

Put simply, this illustrates the equal parts of desperation and fascism to which the modern conservative moment has sunk over the past four decades.  More specifically, it underscores the extent to which the restriction of voting rights, and other rights, is key to the maintenance of its political power.  Note what I said here:  not the maintenance of its ability to benefit society, but the maintenance of its power.

I'll have much more to say about this in the coming weeks and months.  Stay tuned, stay safe, and enjoy the summer while being beware of August.  Politics have been know to take a sinister turn during this month.