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.