Dumbest Anti-Equality Column Ever?

I’ve seen some absurd and bizarre arguments against marriage equality over the last few years, but this column at Renew America by David Usher, president of the Center for Marriage Policy, may top them all. And it’s made all the funnier by the fact that he starts out by saying that the way to win this battle is with good arguments:

There is hope – but only if we immediately change our game. The animus propelling the recent decisions was “equality,” as evidenced by oral arguments and the terse language contained in decision of the Supreme Court. It is possible to reverse the rulings and protect state constitutional bans if we lead with strong equality arguments in our briefs and in our public work on the cultural front.

His idea of a strong equality argument is essentially to take the Handmaid’s Tale and flip it on its head, with men becoming the slaves of lesbian women in some dark dystopic feminocracy that he has pulled from his rectal cavity:

In its ruling the Supreme Court unjustly and erroneously created three classes of marriage with vastly different reproductive, social, political, economic rights, and liabilities – depending solely on an individual’s ability to naturally bear a child.

Class 1: Mother-mother marriages: The class of marriages having most advantageous rights is marriages between two women. When two women marry, it is a three-way contract among two women and the government. Most women will bear children by men outside the marriage – often by pretending they are using birth control when they are not. Entrapped men become economically-conscripted third parties to these marriages, but get nothing in return.

This is a significant advantage compelling women who would otherwise become (or are) single mothers to choose to marry a woman instead of a man. They can combine incomes, double-up on tax-free child support and welfare benefits, decrease costs, and double the human resources available to raise children and run their household. They are sexually liberated with boyfriends often cohabiting with them to provide additional undeclared income and human resources without worrying about what happens when they break up with their boyfriends.

Today, approximately 25% of single mothers cohabit with an undocumented boyfriend. Same-sex marriage allows women to double-up on everything, establishing sub-rosa polyandrous marriage as a common legal institution with men as peripheral servants without a stake in marriage or society…

Class 3: Male-Male marriages. Marriages between two men are destined to be the marital underclass. In most cases, these men will become un-consenting “fathers” by reproductive entrapment. Men in male-male marriages who become fathers by deceptive means will be forced to pay child support to women in bi-maternal marriages, and become economically enslaved to Class-1 marriages. The taxpayers will be guarantors of child support collections for low-income fathers who cannot afford to pay (as occurs in the existing welfare state).

Wow. That is just spectacularly stupid. The Supreme Court didn’t do anything remotely like he suggests, of course. And seriously, spermjacking? Really? There’s nothing even close to a coherent argument for why any of these things will happen, but I doubt that could possibly matter to anyone who would take this nonsense seriously.

"This sounds like opinion not objective journalism. Report the facts, leave your opinions out of ..."

When Trump Ad-Libs
"Correct. That is exactly what I said. In any source of white light (including the ..."

Catholic School to Punish Students for ..."
"You might be able to from the upper observation pod, (checks), the lake, yes, the ..."

Flat Earth Crackpot May Die Soon
"Oh, that sort of sucking! My mistake."

Palin’s Pointless Appeal

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Chiroptera

    Most women will bear children by men outside the marriage….

    Men in male-male marriages who become fathers by deceptive means….

    Doesn’t he understand what gay means?

    Or does he think that suddenly tons of heterosexuals are going to get into same-sex marriages just to screw with the other sex?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1468751142 Kevin

    “Undocumented boyfriend”?

    um…er…wha?

  • some bastard on the net

    Undocumented boyfriend.

    I nominate this as the dumbest phrase of the year.

  • Larry

    What’s really scary is that there is a whole group of people who read that and say to themselves “Wow, there sure makes a lot of sense”.

  • Captain Mike

    “… with men becoming the slaves of lesbian women in some dark dystopic feminocracy … ”

    Not really my bag, but I must admit that’s pretty hot.

  • doublereed

    I’m always not sure how to respond to arguments that go completely off the rails like this. Other than just “What the fuck are you talking about?” or “How would that occur? I don’t understand. Please explain.”

  • Trebuchet

    Got some serious PIDOOMA going on there!

  • DrewN

    Just so I understand: Lesbians (who aren’t interested in men) will trick gay men (who are just as uninterested in them) into having unprotected sex with them? I would really like to know what sort of “deceptive means” he thinks these evil lesbians will be using to look like gay men. Fake moustaches?

  • eric

    This is a significant advantage compelling women who would otherwise become (or are) single mothers to choose to marry a woman instead of a man. They can combine incomes, double-up on tax-free child support and welfare benefits, decrease costs, and double the human resources available to raise children and run their household.

    (a) none of this is a reason for a woman to marry a woman instead of a man, since they’ll get exactly the same benefits by marrying a man. Heck, divorced fathers may even come with an extra kid to gve you that (conservative daydreamed) juicy tax-free-child support.

    (b) it seems a bit of a non-sequitur to complain about a couple getting combined incomes and combined tax breaks, and then in the next breath complain about them getting combined welfare benefits. Um, hello? Any couple getting a lot of the first two isn’t getting the latter. To get a tax break on your daycare, you have to make enough to be paying taxes in the first place.

  • Loqi

    @DrewN

    I like the fake moustache idea. Though the breasts would still be a giveaway, so they’ll need one for each of those as well. And maybe one of those glasses/nose/moustache combos over the genitals. The fake nose would make a very convincing penis.

  • eric

    Having browsed the rest of the column, he seems to be taking his talking points not from the religious right but from men’s rights groups. He’s pretty obsessed with thought of men not having parental rights and men’s access to the women they want in general. Like this quote:

    Same-sex marriage will permit women to “choose” to advantageously wall men out of government-entitled marriages. Men’s natural social, economic, parental, and political rights will be procedurally subrogated.

    Translation: if you can marry her, you won’t be pressured by social convention to marry me, but I want you to be forced to pick me, so I lose.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    @8:

    “Lesbians (who aren’t interested in men) will trick gay men (who are just as uninterested in them) into having unprotected sex with them?”

    Of course. See, The Gay works to make the gay man and the gay woman have gayhomosex with each other. While it would LOOK like hetero-sex, it is really two homosexuals having sex, so it is still gay and evil. Plus, it makes an extra mockery of traditional marriages and further devalues them.

    It is really that simple, see?

  • matty1

    single mothers cohabit with an undocumented boyfriend.

    *insert picture of Jean Luc Picard*

    OK now, Undocumented implies there is some requirement to document boyfriends that they are avoiding, this seems unlikely to say the least.

    Second if they are cohabiting they are not single, look I know marriage has lots of advantages in terms of tax, inheritance, hospital visitation rights etc but other relationships still exist and are still serious. Anyone who can’t tell the difference between ‘in a committed relationship but choosing for whatever reason not to give it legal status’ and ‘not in a relationship’ – look I’ll just refer you to my first point.

  • John Pieret

    DrewN @ 8

    Just so I understand: Lesbians (who aren’t interested in men) will trick gay men (who are just as uninterested in them) into having unprotected sex with them?

    I think Usher is claiming (to the extent that anything can be made of that babble) that straight women will choose to marry each other, but keep boyfriends around as “peripheral servants” to serve their needs (until they trick them into becoming fathers paying child support).

    Now the Class 3 male-male marriages are presumably actual gays because they get none of the “benefits” the female-femaile marriages bestow. How the women trick gay men in more or less stable relationships into fathering their children is never quite explained (along with everything else in the article).

  • DaveL

    So gay marriage is bad because it leads to a bunch of extramarital heterosexual sex by gay people. Or something. Look, it’s forgivable when somebody doesn’t understand Supreme Court rulings, because those are dense and highly technical legal documents. It might even be slightly understandable that they don’t get how the welfare system works, because it does involve laws and government bureaucracy.

    But is it too much to ask for them to understand how “gay” works?

  • Chiroptera

    John Pieret, #14:

    Oh, is that what he’s saying? What does he think prevents heterosexually married women from having peripheral boyfriends? Or is fooling the legal husband into thinking the kids are his saving the peripheral boyfriend from child support the thing that makes this okay?

    Man, I really can’t figure out how right wing nuts think.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    @15: “But is it too much to ask for them to understand how “gay” works?”

    It has something to do with Midi-Chlorians, right?

  • http://timgueguen.blogspot.com timgueguen

    matty1, I suspect that in some places you probably can’t live with someone if you are on government assistance without informing the government, so they can turn around and reduce the amount of housing money they’re paying you. So said women aren’t telling the government they’re shacking up so they can get the housing allowance of someone living alone. Or Usher at least believes that’s the case. After all part of the theme of this is that them evil wimmins are going to steal even more of his hard earned money by welfare cheating than they already do..

  • http://windaelicker.worpress.com mikmik

    Does he think childcare benefits are calculated by how many mothers a child has? If polygamy was legal, he would fold himself inside out(overreact) over the possibility that a woman would not just marry another woman to double the CHILDcare allowance, but they could further marry another one to triple the allotments, and so on!

    Does he think benefits are accrued, not on the actual number of children present, but based on the number of parents a kid has?

  • eric

    Chiroptera:

    is fooling the legal husband into thinking the kids are his saving the peripheral boyfriend from child support the thing that makes this okay?

    He seems to think that marriage is the man’s “payback” for having to support a child. Lesbian marriages deny them this payback.

    I would really classify his whole spiel as more misogynistic than anti-gay. Or, maybe, anti-gay due to an underlying misogyny. Woven throughout his entire screed are these misogynistic assumptions. That men are owed sexual access to any women they support. That men as a group are owed sex by women as a group (so, lesbians are ‘cheating’ on the social contract). That to ask a man to behave responsibly towards his offspring without getting sex in return for doing so is an unfair and unwanted burden, rather than just the decent and loving thing to do.

  • jimmyfromchicago

    @eric–It seemed like an MRA/MGTOW argument to me too. There’s not typically a lot of overlap between the MRAs and the religious right: The latter want men to have what it assumes to be a “traditional” male role (with both its burdens and benefits), but the former want men to have more rights but aren’t too crazy about them having responsibilities. Usher seems to understand this is the last chance to Save Marriage(TM) and is trying to use whatever he thinks might work.

    ———

    Most women will bear children by men outside the [mother-mother] marriage – often by pretending they are using birth control when they are not.

    Ummmmm. {fact}?

    ———–

    The welfare state is an automatic statutory third party economically supporting these marriage contracts via welfare entitlements, some of which are “advances on child support collections.”

    The taxpayers will be guarantors of child support collections for low-income fathers who cannot afford to pay (as occurs in the existing welfare state).

    He mentions this issue twice, so I tried to find something on it. The closest I can find is that child support offices/Friends of the Court will help you apply for welfare if the father of your child does not pay child support and you have so little income from other sources that you qualify. I know he didn’t just make it up, because no right-wing columnist would ever do that, right?

    ———————

    All in all, this column was an impressive effort to construct a plot wherein the current bogeymen of the right: gays, welfare cheats, and feminists combine to oppress white, heterosexual men. However, there is clearly room for improvement. Usher didn’t even mention immigrants or Muslims. Maybe these lesbian couples are illegal immigrants who will use their welfare riches to fund Islamic terrorism. I’m sure he could work this in if he tried.

  • http://accidental-historian.typepad.com/accidental-historian/ Geds

    matty1 @13: *insert picture of Jean Luc Picard*

    Pleaseohpleaseohplease tell me that’s a subtle Refreshments reference.

  • carlie

    Note that he thinks that all women would choose to marry other women instead of men. Hm.

    Who is class 2?

  • matty1

    @18 Of course I hadn’t thought of that lots of benefits are calculated based on household income so they want to know about other people in the household. I’ll withdraw that part of my comment.

    @22 Sorry what is Refreshments?

  • Morgan

    I thought this sounded familiar, so I googled it – Ed posted about a similar argument from the same guy almost two years ago. Now I’m depressed that I remembered it after that long.

    Anyway, yeah, as eric and others have pointed out above, the argument doesn’t even really involve homo- or heterosexuality. It assumes that women abhor men but want sex and children, ideally with as many different men as possible, so they’ll partner with each other in marriages for economic and social benefits and then sleep around to steal the seed of poor hapless sperm donors who’ll be stuck paying child support. Without women to marry, those unlucky men will have to marry each other for the tax breaks.

    Apparently women are just so faithless and awful that they must be denied the benefits of marriage unless they’re monogamously, heterosexually married to the father of their children, as otherwise they’ll game the system and create a dystopia.

  • raven

    David Usher seems to be so stupid and mentally ugly that he can’t conceive that any woman would marry him. It’s that fundie leader vaguely humanoid toad thing. Unless they were forced to by economic circumstances or a shotgun pointed at their head.

    He is right.

    He is missing the fact that out in Normal-person-land, people find other people attractive, fall in love, and get married all the time,…without anyone forcing them too. It’s all that freedom and voluntary agreement stuff he hasn’t even heard of.

  • raven

    Same-sex marriage will permit women to “choose” to advantageously wall men out of government-entitled marriages.

    Men’s natural social, economic, parental, and political rights will be procedurally subrogated.

    Men’s natural rights might well be ignored.

    If they existed. They don’t.

    Natural law doesn’t exist. It just sounds better than “the voices in my head”.

    This guy doesn’t want to be a husband and father. He wants to be a slave owner.

  • suttkus

    You people don’t get it! The lesbians will pretend to be transexual males pretending to be women to fool the gay men into having sex with them! It all fits! Civilization is over!

  • stever

    Natural law obviously exists, because the universe is not pure chaos. But real natural law has nothing to do with what the Religious Reich means when they toss that phrase into every debate. Usher obviously can’t believe that real homosexuality exists. This is analogous to the incredulity that we get from religiots who just can’t stretch their narrow minds around the concept of having no religion at all.

  • Chiroptera

    raven, #26: He is missing the fact that out in Normal-person-land, people find other people attractive, fall in love, and get married all the time,…

    Heh. It’s pretty obvious that he missed the important point about marriage being about love and mutual respect and so forth. If he got it, then he’d support same sex marriage.

  • exdrone

    Sorry, but what exactly is so complicated about marriage that we need a “Center for Marriage Policy” in the first place?

  • http://www.facebook.com/whumenansky williamhumenansky

    I love the brilliant comments on this post. Hope I didn’t miss the proposition that this is a synopsis of a forthcoming Fox TV sitcom. Feel free to cast it with your own thespians.

  • http://riffingreligion.wordpress.com/ Wes

    Can’t believe no one has said it yet:

    I, for one, welcome our new lesbian overlords.

  • John Pieret

    Wes @ 33:

    Can’t believe no one has said it yet:

    Well, when I raised this article in comments a couple of days ago, =8)-DX did say:

    I for one welcome our married “bi-maternal” overladies.

  • No One

    Wow…

    Entrapped men become economically-conscripted third parties to these marriages, but get nothing in return.

    But they get to actually orgasm inside a vagina. That has to count for something. Plus if they are nihilist/ atheist types they get to spread their genes. Purpose accomplished!

    In most cases, these men will become un-consenting “fathers” by reproductive entrapment.

    I’m going to trademark and patent “Jesus Condoms”. “Protect your investments with the sign of the cross!”

  • dingojack

    suttkus (#28) – What no lizardmen/human hybrids? How disappointing!

    :) Dingo

  • eric

    @31 – Right wing groups sometimes create organizations with official-sounding names to fool the public into thinking there is government backing for their opinions. They put out some press release, slap a “Center of …. ” logo on the bottom of it, and some people are going to be fooled into thinking it must be well-reasoned becaues it sounds like the goverment speaking. The Chamber of Commerce being the classic example of this. Its a form of deceptive advertising, though perfectly legal. The “Center for Marriage Policy” sounds like one of those.

    Of course, at this point in the gay rights fight, I expect that many people are aware that any organization with “marriage” in the name is likely to be a conservative advocacy group. So it probably won’t have the deceptive power of the CoC. But I’m sure it’ll work on some people.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=153100784 michaelbrew

    Really, the entire antigay argument has been based on the idea that gay people don’t really exist (as we understand it, anyway). Everyone is heterosexual, cis, and probably white and male, too. To them, gay people are just as attracted to the opposite gender as anyone else but just have some same sex fetish, like having sex in anything other than the missionary position.

  • konrad_arflane

    I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this argument almost verbatim somewhere else a few years ago, but my google-fu is not strong enough to find it. It certainly has more than a whiff of MRA “thinking” about it.

  • Joey Maloney

    Dumbest anti-equality column ever? Maybe, but that’s like saying “this is the dumbest thing that Jonah Goldberg ever wrote”. It is…until the next thing he writes.

  • dingojack

    michaelbrew – a slight usage quibble*: since ‘hetero-‘ and ‘homo-‘ prefixes are Greek not Latin wouldn’t ‘para-‘ be better than ‘cis-‘? The former is used with Latin loanwords (‘cisalpine’), and the latter with Greek loanwords (‘parallel’) ** [/inner editor]

    Dingo

    ——–

    * not disagreeing

    ** usually with Greek verbs or verb-derivatives (gerunds, participles etc.). Although ‘cis-‘ can also take the meaning ‘beyond, past or by’ (‘paradox’); ‘auxiliary to’ (‘paralegal’); ‘derivative from’ {‘parody’), and from these last two, having the sense of defective or lesser (‘paraphilia’). So perhaps not. 😉

  • dingojack

    On second thoughts, since ‘sexual’ is Latin derived maybe the whole quibble is not really applicable.

    :) Dingo

  • francesc

    Wait, I thought that child support depends on the household income too, so if two women officially marry and share their income it should mean that the father pays less. As if, and I know it is crazy, the mother had a larger income than the father. Also, we here in Europe can donate sperm, it sounds easier for women than tricking a gay man to have sex with you.

    Now, other inmoral points in today’s society: “They are sexually liberated with boyfriends” Jesus is crying for you, america. “Today, approximately 25% of single mothers cohabit with an undocumented boyfriend” Sodomah and Gomorrah! What’s doing God right now?

    “as occurs in the existing welfare state” Wich coincidentally, opresses men and should be eradicated too. Just saying. Welfare state is communism!

    BTW, how will fit in that list the marriages that don’t want to have children? Like, there is weird people out there and maybe, just maybe, they don’t want kids. Oops, I forgot, trying to have kids must be a requisite for christian(c) marriage.

  • eric

    BTW, how will fit in that list the marriages that don’t want to have children? Like, there is weird people out there and maybe, just maybe, they don’t want kids

    Many of whom are women, which Usher doesn’t recognize.

    He appears to think that some significant percent of women live for the opportunity to steal sperm, have babies, and then live off the unwilling support of the legally exiled father while having lots of one-night-stands with other men and women.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “It is really that simple, see?”

    theschwa:

    It’s even simpler. David Usher is a fucking lying, piece-of-shit sociopath*; worse even, he’s a POUTY fucking lying, piece-of-shit sociopath.

    * The term I am wont to use since Ed doesn’t think we should call the clearly crazy motherfucker, y’know, “CRAZY”.

  • martinc

    Morgan @ 25:

    Oh, thank goodness, I thought it was just me having terrible deja vu moment. What’s truly sad is that this poor deluded soul published this deranged babble 2 years ago, yet since then NONE of his friends has seen fit – more in sorrow than anger, of course – to gently talk him into giving up his internet access before he embarrasses himself further.

  • Nick Gotts

    Note that he thinks that all women would choose to marry other women instead of men. Hm.

    Who is class 2? – carlie

    The cat-dog marriages?

  • Nick Gotts

    I, for one, welcome our new lesbian overlords. – Wes

    Surely that should be overladies?

  • Christoph Burschka

    Most women will bear children by men outside the marriage – often by pretending they are using birth control when they are not. Entrapped men become economically-conscripted third parties to these marriages, but get nothing in return.

    I don’t want to judge him for what he does in his private time, but if Usher thinks the chief pursuit of lesbian women is having sex with men, then he may some difficulty distinguishing pornography from reality.

  • Nick Gotts

    Sorry, should have looked as far as #34 before posting #48!

  • smhll

    Threadrupt.

    So, everyone with a uterus should just play the shark music from Jaws whenever they enter the room?

    Get a vasectomy, dude, if it makes you so nervous!