David Usher: A Wingnut’s Wingnut

David Usher: A Wingnut’s Wingnut November 28, 2011

You’ve probably never heard of David Usher. I hadn’t either until I saw this post from him. He’s the president of the Center for Marriage Policy, a group so off on the lunatic right wing fringe that he makes Maggie Gallagher sound like a gay rights activist. There are so many levels of crazy going on here you won’t believe it. Like did you know that same-sex marriage is all about feminism? And that feminism is unconstitutional?

Forget the terms “same sex” and “gay” marriage. These are victim-based marketing ploys invented N.O.W. to send us off into a heated debate about homosexuality and equal rights — distracting us from seeing their real goal of establishing “feminist marriage”.

Feminists made “feminist marriage” their top long-term goal twenty-five years ago, and invested tremendous resources in it, because they intend to convert marriage into a feminist-controlled government enterprise and subordinate the rest of America to entitle it.

Feminist marriage is structurally designed to destroy equality. It structurally establishes three classes of marriage, each with vastly different reproductive, social, and economic rights and protections under Constitutional law

Scratching your head yet? Just wait.

Feminist “marriage” is a three-way contract between two women and government. Most women will have children, and few women can afford or will go to the length of using artificial insemination to get pregnant. Government is the automatic third party collecting “child support” entitlements for children borne in these marriages.

Children will be borne of extramarital affairs backed by welfare guarantees and child support entitlements. Feminist marriages are automatically entitled with many entitled, tax-free, governmental income sources for having children.

Feminist marriage is a marriage between any two women and the welfare state. It constitutes a powerful feminist takeover of marriage by government, and places the National Organization for Women in the position of dictating government policy as a matter of “feminist Constitutional rights”.

Feminist marriage will be far more attractive to all women than heterosexual marriage. Sexual orientation does not matter when two women marry and become “married room-mates”. They can still have as many boyfriends as they want, and capture the richest ones for baby-daddies by “forgetting” to use their invisible forms of birth control. On average, a feminist marriage will have at least four income sources, two of them tax-free, plus backup welfare entitlements.

Uh. Okay.

Heterosexual marriage: Traditional marriages between men and women will continue, but be subrogated to feminist marriage and socioeconomically dis-incentivized. Traditional marriages will pay taxes to support feminist marriages where child support or welfare recoupments are not collectable, as occurs in our existing welfare state. Traditional marriages have only two income sources, neither of them entitled or tax-free. Over time, many women will prefer “feminist marriage” because of the very substantial economic and sexual liberation advantages. Heterosexual marriage will be heavily burdened by costly marriage penalties, and be comparatively unattractive to women.

You betcha.

Male-Male marriages: Marriages between two men are designed to be a “marital underclass”. In most cases, these men will become “fathers” without consent. Women in feminist marriages will not mention they stopped using birth control. Male-male marriages will be forced to pay child support to feminist marriages and become economically-enslaved to them. The taxpayer will be forced to pay for child support men cannot afford to pay, as occurs in out existing welfare state.

Male-male marriages cannot reproduce naturally (a primary factor in Constitutional case law). They can acquire children only by artificial means, and at great expense, by adoption or renting a womb. Most men in these marriages will still have regular sexual encounters with women.

Some men in these “marriages” will want to have children. These men will have even more illegitimate children with women in (or contemplating) feminist marriages, most often without informed reproductive consent. “Reproductive fraud” will become the norm in the United States over time.

Okie dokie.

I argue that the structure of feminist marriage, which includes a full review of its inseparable interlocking interaction with existing federal and state welfare law, is unconstitutional on its face.

The vast majority of feminist marriages will bear children out-of-wedlock, making government the automated statutory third party in feminist marriages with naturally-conceived children.

Feminist marriage directly violates 14th Amendment protection against sex discrimination, and the 5th Amendment is violated at the Federal level.

I want to be there to see the look on a judge’s face when this whacko files a legal brief making those arguments. I don’t care if it’s the most conservative judge you can find. Even Scalia and Thomas would find those arguments laughable.

""So that's why they don't want to help poor people, because it makes them gay!"First ..."

Hey, Maybe That’s Why Conservatives Hate ..."
"It just proves that gene duplication is not a blind and mindless process."

Behe Continues to Ignore Evidence Against ..."
"If you understood the paper you would understand why gene duplication is not a blind ..."

Behe Continues to Ignore Evidence Against ..."

Browse Our Archives