Wingnut Defines ‘Feminist Marriage’

Wingnut Defines ‘Feminist Marriage’ April 3, 2013

The Center for Marriage Policy is a wingnut group that makes the National Organization for Marriage seem downright rational by comparison. Its president, David Usher, has penned one of the looniest diatribes on the subject you’ll ever see. He claims, with no evidence whatsoever, that same-sex marriage is really “feminist marriage.” And wait till you see what he thinks that means:

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

1. 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 extreme of using artificial insemination to achieve pregnancy. Government is the automatic third party collecting “child support” entitlements for children born in these marriages.

Children will be born of extramarital affairs backed by welfare guarantees and child support entitlements. Feminist marriages are automatically entitled with many 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 NOW in the position of dictating government policy as a matter of “feminist Constitutional rights.”

Feminist marriage will be far more attractive to 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.

Feminist marriage is government-sponsored serial polyandry, uniquely enriched by one or more substantial income sources not available to the other two planned subordinate classes of marriage.

2. Heterosexual marriage: Traditional marriages between men and women will continue, but be subrogated to feminist marriage and socio-economically dis-incentivized. Those in traditional marriages will pay taxes that will be used to support feminist marriages where child support or welfare cannot be recouped, 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.

3. Male-Male marriages: Marriages between two men are destined to be the “marital underclass.” In most cases, these men will become unconsenting “fathers.” Women in feminist marriages will not mention they are not using birth control. Men in male-male marriages will be forced to pay child support to women in feminist marriages and become economically enslaved to these women. The taxpayer will be forced to pay for child support some men cannot afford to pay, as occurs in our 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. Over time, reproductive fraud will become the norm in the United States.

Uh, yeah. He doesn’t have any evidence for this, of course, nor does he suggest any possible pathway from the status quo to this imaginary dystopia he’s conjured up. Silly rabbit, evidence and logic are for skeptics.

Browse Our Archives