Gingrich: Wrong Again »« Bachmann Gets Second Godhead Endorsement

David Usher: A Wingnut’s Wingnut

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.

Comments

  1. Michael Heath says

    Ed writes:

    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.

    Laughable sure but this wingnut is using the very same approach to argumentation that conservatives in general make and promote. David Usher’s condition is illustrative of the same disease that infects nearly every American conservative.

  2. Randomfactor says

    Feminist marriage will be far more attractive to all women than heterosexual marriage.

    This guy’s basic sense of inadequacy is what’s driving his insanity.

  3. dochopper says

    Rethink this ED,
    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.

    I am frightened to think they wont!

  4. says

    Two things (of many) in this loony’s diatribe:
    First:
    “Feminist marriage will be far more attractive to all women than heterosexual marriage.” All women?
    Second:
    That gay men will be tricked into being fathers.

    David Usher is so detached from reality that I suggest he change his pajamas and step outdoors for a minute. Just to see that there is a world.
    I’ll bet he’s single, furthermore always has been.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if he is the only member of Center for Marriage Policy. Can there be more than one person this crazy?

  5. says

    This is typical incoherent mens-rights sophistry, and its sole purpose is to slap a innelekshal veneer all over their longstanding, deep-seated, uneducable and immovable hatred and bitterness toward women (and the men who don’t hate them enough).

    Also, I’ve heard the “feminism is unconstitutional” bit elsewhere. The MRAs are trying to use the rhetoric of equality to portray feminism, and women’s precautions against rape, as the equivalent of racial profiling. I kid you not.

    I tentatively predict a wavelet of MRA trolls will find this thread and try to gum it up with their whinery, bigotry and butthurt.

  6. regexp says

    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.

    Bad movies staring Madonna aside – I can tell you that this participant in a male to male marriage would not be caught dead sleeping with a women – like the vast majority of gay men.

  7. says

    I am frightened to think they wont [find it laughable]!

    I’m in the same boat. I’m chronically worried that there’s enough of these nutbars in power (some keeping their sexism in relative secrecy) to reverse all the ground we’ve gained towards equality.

  8. elipson says

    Male-Male marriages: Marriages between two men are designed to be a “marital underclass”. In most cases, these men will become “fathers” without consent.

    Has… has he heard about condoms?…

  9. Cliff Hendroval says

    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.

    O rly?

  10. Phillip IV says

    Just another “Defender of Traditional Marriage” whose opinion of the institution is apparently so low that he just can’t see anybody choosing it without societal pressure or financial incentive.

  11. d cwilson says

    Most men in these marriages will still have regular sexual encounters with women.

    Yes, because everyone knows that the real reason two gay men want to get married is so that they can have sex with women.

    Um, what?

    So, to sum up, this guy believes that the primary goal of most women is to “trap” men into becoming fathers and then forcing both the men and the government to pay them money. And not even being gay and thereofore, having no interest in having sex with women, can protect you from these nefarious women. They will still find a way to get you!

    That is some weapons-grade crazy righ there.

  12. D. C. Sessions says

    I bow to the master.

    Give him this, though, he’s at least answered the question that nobody else has: how is it that “gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage.” Of course, that suggests that he’s actually the Deep Thinker behind all of the other more visible opponents of …

    No. That way lies madness.

  13. lofgren says

    I’ve never heard of feminist marriage but this looks to me like more evidence that what homophobes are really afraid of is the destabilizing effect of two married people treating each other with mutual respect and dignity, rather than a lordly man paired with a subservient wife.

  14. freemage says

    Feminist marriage will be far more attractive to all women than heterosexual marriage.

    This guy’s well-justified sense of inadequacy is what’s driving his insanity.

    FTFY

  15. Ellie says

    He appears to be a “fathers rights” wingnut and is not fond of women. He would like to return the Christian Church (apparently, most particularly the Episcopal Church) to the Patriarchy it was meant to be. His world is full of women who marry soldiers for one day to collect their allotments and receive undeserved child support. He thinks women’s shelters are bad because they are hotbeds of child molestation. I don’t believe he has anything good to say about women at all…at least nothing I’ve found so far. I had never heard of him before, and I almost wish it had stayed that way.

  16. peterh says

    Got some industrial-grade stupid going on there! Usher, eh? Perhaps he’s a descendant of the Bishop Ussher clown who “determined” the Earth was created at a certain hour on a certain day?

  17. ArtK says

    Shorter Usher: “The wimminz. Theyz out 2 get meee!” He uses big words intelligent.

    Male-male marriages cannot reproduce naturally (a primary factor in Constitutional case law).

    (Emphasis mine.)

    Huh? Only a big factor in the briefs from anti-gay assholes. I just don’t recall anything in the Constitution about natural reproduction. I’d sure love to see a citation showing that the Constitution gives a rats-ass about whether someone can have children “naturally” or not.

  18. Modusoperandi says

    Shorter Usher: “I took an accounting of myself and realized that my wife could get a better deal if she switched teams.”

  19. imthegenieicandoanything says

    “Even Scalia and Thomas would find those arguments laughable.”

    There you go, again, Ed.

    Scalia’s idea of “laughable” – in public and while enrobed – is driven by one concern: how the “argument” bolsters whatever the hell he wants the “law” to mean at the time.

    And Thomas might as well be making judicial decisions based on the size of the tips his masters give him.

    Two of the worst, in every way, SCJs ever, and that’s with Roberts defiling the Chief Justice position already covered in rotting webbing and sucked-dry carcasses from Renquist’s time.

    “Cinservatives” – they’re ALL bad, and most at the top are actively in the service of evil.

  20. Chiroptera says

    ArtK, #23:

    In fact, Perry v Schwarzenneger was quite clear that the exact opposite is true in US case law:”natural reproduction” hasn’t been of any concern at all to the courts in determining marriage rights.

  21. eric says

    I went over to the site (I don’t recommend). The organization is only a few months old and Usher credits Phyllis Schlafly for helping to start it.

    Its not so much a men’s rights organization as it is a far-right ‘Christian morality’ organization with some men’s right icing on it: everyone should get hetero-married, divorce should be difficult, and christian churches should oversee the whole process.

  22. chrislrob says

    What the flying hell did I just read? Why are dudes marrying each other and having sex with women? Why are women marrying each other and having sex with dudes? What financial advantage is there in woman/woman marriage? More child support?

    So confused…

    And I’m laughing, too, at the idea that women will realize that they are WAY better off marrying other women. The whole thing reminds me of a comedy skit where two guys in the 1950’s “invent” gay sex: “Wow, what a great day! We’ve got football on t.v., beers in the fridge and steaks on the grill! The only way this could be better is if there were sex!” “Well,” the other guy says reasonably, “you can’t have sex without women!” “Yeah, I know, but I’m just sayin’…!” LOL!

  23. Android B says

    @ D.C. Session (#14)

    As I was reading Ed’s post I thought the exact same thing re: Usher actually articulating a way in which gay marriage destroys “traditional marriage.”

    One of the most important aspects of the Prop 8 trial here in California was, when pressed for an explanation of exactly how gay marriage negatively affects traditional marriage, none of the numerous pro-Prop 8 witnesses had any explanation whatsoever, much less a well-reasoned one. (Prop 8 is the anti-gay marriage ballot initiative that was passed in CA in 2008.)

    This, however, is exactly what such an explanation would have to look like: a rambling, convoluted, paranoid, and non-sensical diatribe bearing no relationship to anything approaching reality. Only through such inane “reasoning” can any such explanation be made.

  24. illdoittomorrow says

    Condoms, as every redblooded patriotic American male knows, are a communofascist secret muslim fem-atheist Obamanaut plot to feminize and emasculate men from doing their natural studly breeding/property-producing duty, and promote evil tradition-destroying war-on-CHRISTmas buttsecks.

    Or something, I’m sure. Channelling wingnuttery is harder than it looks.

  25. illdoittomorrow says

    Argh! Blockquote fail, and I can’t seem to make it work. I was referring to elipson’s mention of condoms at #10.

  26. Pierce R. Butler says

    Uh, Mr. Usher – I admit I had to look it up, but I (still) don’t think “subrogate” means what you think it means…

    [/Inigo M.]

  27. kermit. says

    lofgren I’ve never heard of feminist marriage but this looks to me like more evidence that what homophobes are really afraid of is the destabilizing effect of two married people treating each other with mutual respect and dignity, rather than a lordly man paired with a subservient wife.

    I think you have something here, lofgren. If the little lady, the ball and chain, the temptress hussy wife, sees a better life elsewhere in some feminist marriage (a better term than Usher realizes), they’ll wonder why the hell they are shackled to that abusive, self-centered asshole her daddy bullied her into marrying. Of course Usher and his ilk can’t understand what a healthy marriage is like, but they know they’re out there, and Usher isn’t part of it.

    timgueguen I wonder what Usher’s marital history is. He sounds like someone who had a bad marriage at some point and now wants to take it out on everyone.

    In fact, this column of his from a few years ago supports that scenario:
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david1.htm

  28. danielrudolph says

    He seems to assume no woman could actual enjoy a man’s company. They marry men for babies, sex and money. If we give them other options to get these things, they won’t want to marry men. I can see why he’d think this as I doubt any women enjoy his company, but can’t single women theoretically do this without gay marriage? Why aren’t women just co-habiting and trying to take men’s money already?

  29. DaveL says

    can’t single women theoretically do this without gay marriage?

    The article linked by kermit @33 is very revealing. Clearly he had a marriage that failed and he is completely and utterly unable to accept any measure of blame for that failure in any respect. Unwilling to confront his own role, he seems to be casting about for any external cause he can make plausible in his own mind. Given that:

    Divorce has left more women and children in poverty than any war in American history. Single mothers don’t “have it all”. They have to “do it all”.

    Why would a woman willingly leave a good marriage for single motherhood? “Feminism”. “Secular meaninglessnes”. “Gay marriage”. He never quite explains how. In fact, I doubt he has any coherent theory that would explain how. None of that matters, as long as it fills the silence that might otherwise invite introspection into his own failures as a husband.

  30. Aquaria says

    Aw, did poor Davie have a wife leave him for a woman? And she got custody and child support? You can bet that his attorney charged the A-list billable hours, to make up for having to deal with such a creep.

    Children will be borne of extramarital affairs backed by welfare guarantees and child support entitlements.

    Because welfare and child support payments earn so much that you can live like a queen!

    What planet is this guy living on? In most states, child support + welfare (if you can get both; a lot of states, you can’t!) won’t even pay rent on anything but a flea-ridden apartment where your lullaby is gunfire every night.

  31. Aquaria says

    Clearly he had a marriage that failed and he is completely and utterly unable to accept any measure of blame for that failure in any respect. Unwilling to confront his own role, he seems to be casting about for any external cause he can make plausible in his own mind. Given that:

    Divorce has left more women and children in poverty than any war in American history. Single mothers don’t “have it all”. They have to “do it all”.

    Why would a woman willingly leave a good marriage for single motherhood? Why would a woman willingly leave a good marriage for single motherhood?

    Pity the poor woman who was married to this turd. You can bet that he was a cheap, selfish, thoughtless piece of shit who was lucky that any woman would put up with him long enough to have kids by him.

  32. ArtK says

    Wow. From the article linked @33

    Folks often ask my why I keep working on it eighteen years after my own unnecessary ejection from society

    His “ejection from society?” The stereotype is that women regard marriage as the be-all-and-end-all of life; it’s kinda refreshing to see a man fall into that trap. As far as “unnecessary,” well, I’m sure his ex spouse didn’t think of it that way. From my perspective, he wasn’t ejected far enough.

    Something else from that article:

    Others, such as Dr. James Dobson adamantly blame men for what feminists did to society and hold men responsible for it. This is the same false witness feminists have misused all along to take over marriage, family, and even religion, at the expense of men of faith. Let us urge Dr. Dobson to pray for an Awakening, or follow someone else who speaks with true wisdom.

    If James Dobson isn’t nutty enough for you, you certainly are a nut’s nut.

    Hmmm…

    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.

    At least the feds won’t be responsible for children conceived in feminist marriages through artificial insemination.

    Finally, can someone parse this for me, please?

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

    What does the 5th Amendment have to do with marriage? I thought it was about grand juries, due process, self-incrimination and double jeopardy. My reading of the 14th Amendment includes some sex discrimination, since it specifically bases representation on male citizens. Where’s the protection in that?

    So, is he just bone stupid or is he throwing these things in to sound impressive to an audience that is bone stupid?

  33. Chris from Europe says

    @ArtK
    The first thing is probably equal protection. I don’t understand how this is incompatible with his “feminist marriages” (square quotes ftw). And regarding the Fifth Amendment, I think it’s about not being deprived of property …

    If only Obama would have followed Beck’s advice and invested in institutions that reprogram teabaggers.

  34. says

    This:

    “David R. Usher – President

    Dave is a policy analyst, political analyst, speaker, and journalist published in Human Events, World Net Daily, the American Conservative Union, Eagle Forum, Heartland Foundation, and college textbooks. He graduated Knox College in 1974. Dave has been involved in socioeconomic policy and law at the federal and state levels for 23 years. He previously served on the Boards of RADAR and the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

    Dave spent many years independently studying law, social policy, management science, psychology, sociology, and culture to avoid enforced biases of liberal colleges and universities.”

    is from here (http://marriagepolicy.org/2011/03/board_of_directors/)

    He is, unfortunately not the only fucking KKKrazzeepants asshole on that board.

  35. says

    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.

    wut.

    any person who fucks without a condom in a society in which apparently multiple partners are a given for everyone is a fucking idiot. I wouldn’t go so far as to say fucking without a condom is implicit consent to fathering, but it’s not as if men have absolutely no means of controlling their own fertility in such a society, as seems to be implied by nutcase here. hell, if they’re that worried about fathering (but apparently not STDs?), they can get a vasectomy; or finally get around to developing the male pill.

  36. ArtK says

    @ Jadehawk

    The problem is, from Mr. Usher’s perspective, that men are powerless (dare I say, impotent?) when up against “feminism.” This helplessness is quite pathetic, really.

    MRAs like Usher have a deep, abiding hatred of women that comes from fear. Old Sigmund Freud was full of a lot of crap, but I’m not too sure he was very far off with the concept of “castration anxiety.” Playing the armchair psychologist, using a condom (and certainly a vasectomy) is a form of self-castration; a denial of his maleness, if you will. The fear of castration leads to putting ones sexual identity at the forefront of his personal identity. “I am my penis and you’re not taking it away from me.” Humans will go to great (and sometimes horrifying) lengths to preserve their self-image. Usher and his ilk go the route of subjugating women to keep their self-respect.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Meanwhile, back in the real world, Greta Christina argues that marriage equality will have an effect, a good effect, on all marriages. I think she’s right. But, back in fundie-land, what on earth is supposed to be represented by those question marks in point 2? Can you think of anything that fits there? I can’t. But David Usher can. Marriage equality, you see, is only part of the plot. The real collapse comes from that dangerous institution, feminist marriage! [...]

Leave a Reply