Quantcast

«

»

Apr 03 2013

Wingnut Defines ‘Feminist Marriage’

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.

36 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    tynk

    wait, is he MRA? I know I have heard this argument, or something similar, from them. It comes down to us lesbians being nothing more than sperm jackers.

    ummm… yea. Good on you buddy.

  2. 2
    Gretchen

    More evidence that the biggest opposition to same-sex marriage comes from self-hating men.

    They can’t figure out why women would want to be with them except for money and sperm extortion.

    And in their cases, maybe they’re right….

  3. 3
    karmacat

    I think deep down he wants a marriage like that in which he “can have as many boyfriends as he wants.”

  4. 4
    imst

    Maybe it’s cause I’m single and not yet in one of these apparently terrible male-male marriages, but I’m still trying to figure out how I would become an unconsenting father. What with all the sleeping with women I’m not doing. These people don’t seem to be aware of what the gay actually is.

  5. 5
    CaitieCat, in no way a robot nosireebot

    Wow. Just…wow.

    Whatever he’s smoking, I want some, cause it seems like Really. Good. Sh*t.

  6. 6
    democommie

    It’s high time that some honest individual like David Usher speak in tongues of truthiness to power!

    Take off the kid gloves, I say! Call ‘em what they are, Femorrists!

  7. 7
    doublereed

    Wait, doesn’t this diatribe assume that there is no such thing as homosexuality? Because that’s what I’m reading… Isn’t that kind of a strange assumption considering we’re talking about gay marriages??

    And adoption is obviously not a “great expense.”

  8. 8
    doublereed

    And yes, apparently THAT’S what jumped out at me as wrong in this paragraph of hilarity.

  9. 9
    fifthdentist

    I think if David Usher ever has a coherent thought someone should note the time, date and place. Because there should definitely be a monument in that location to commemorate such a unique event.

  10. 10
    iangould

    Yeah, men in gay marriages will be lining up to have sex with lesbians – who’ll be delighted at the prospect.

  11. 11
    Randomfactor

    Traditional marriages between men and women will continue

    He seems to be ignoring the fact that the gummint is a third party in THOSE, too. Wonder why?

  12. 12
    Chiroptera

    I know I’ve asked this before, but do these people know what the hell they’re talking about? Are they even aware that the sounds that come out of their mouths are a form of communication?

  13. 13
    oranje

    I’m having trouble getting through those paragraphs, even with a machete. Is he trying to say that everyone is secretly hetero, and somehow the government is doing something nefarious with the feminists (and, I assume, the reverse vampires, etc.)?

  14. 14
    oranje

    Off topic, but has anyone else gotten the “He Stopped Calling” ad while reading this? Aside from the insanely painful gender stereotyping going on in the picture, who has that many phones?

  15. 15
    iknklast

    Oh, yes, obviously those feminists will not work and contribute to society. They are just going to live off welfare (because all women not living in a marriage with a man are living on welfare?). So, all the women in traditional marriages will HAVE to work, in order to pay for all the entitlements of the feminist marriage. Meanwhile, back in sanity…

  16. 16
    christianne

    This hurts my brain.

  17. 17
    Worldtraveller

    heheheh…he said ‘threeway’.

    Yeah, it’s so stupid, I just went with the Beavis and Butthead reaction. Sorry, I got nothin’ else.

  18. 18
    lofgren

    I’ve definitely heard about the secret plot to institute “feminist marriage” from somewhere before. It’s usually implied to be the secret end-game of the marriage equality movement. The idea is that gays are just useful tools for pushing what is really a female supremacist agenda. Ultimately, the government will make women beholden to them through social programs. By controlling the means of reproduction, atheist feminist socialists will then reign for ten centuries of darkness or something.

    That’s why Usher’s rant doesn’t make sense when applied to gays. Gays are already getting married. Changing the law would only recognize that fact. These people see changing the marriage laws in this apparently harmless fashion as an invitation to radical social engineering by redefining marriage over and over again in a way that primarily benefits the government, with feminists, gays, and other liberals as mere useful idiots whose totalitarian anarchic impulses can be exploited by the elite East-coast professors in their ivory towers.

    Sometimes they will point to some radfem blog (with total page views in the low thousands) dedicated to the goal that all boys who show the slightest inclination towards violence should be summarily castrated as proof that there is a secret feminist conspiracy to destroy and enslave men.

    The usual rules of unhinged paranoia and psychological projection apply.

  19. 19
    Nemo

    Dave, I hate to break this to you, but you can either –

    1. Abstain,
    2. Take charge of your own fertility (condoms, vasectomy), OR
    3. Realize that you ARE implicitly consenting to fatherhood.

    (And yeah, option 2 sometimes fails. See option 1.)

  20. 20
    Synfandel

    Please see my fed-up diatribe here under the “How the Bigots Slander Adoptive Parents” thread.

  21. 21
    Doug Little

    heheheh…he said ‘threeway’.

    We’re not talking about chili are we?

  22. 22
    Ben P

    Dave, I hate to break this to you, but you can either –

    1. Abstain,
    2. Take charge of your own fertility (condoms, vasectomy), OR
    3. Realize that you ARE implicitly consenting to fatherhood.

    (And yeah, option 2 sometimes fails. See option 1.)

    Can someone just invent male birth control already and stop this silly goddamn debate. That’s half the basis for a whole lot of stupid shit arguments is some variation of the argument that people fight head over heels to give women the right to an abortion, but a father who did not want a child has no similar say in child support. “

  23. 23
    Avo, also nigelTheBold

    Why does he assume two married women who have kids are automatically going to need government safety net programs?

    Also, what the fuck is up with all these fools claiming women will use their sperm to get at their money? I’ve heard that from all kinds of MRAs, and now, here.

  24. 24
    CaitieCat, in no way a robot nosireebot

    23 nigelTheBold:

    Also, what the fuck is up with all these fools claiming women will use their sperm to get at their money

    I think it started here (and this is what I think of when I hear of screeds like this):

  25. 25
    frankb

    Usher failed to explain what any marriage has to do with welfare, entitlements, and child support. Women can do all these nefarious things without being married. So there is no motive for heterosexuals to enter SSM. I agree with all the other criticisms too.

  26. 26
    eucliwood

    Holy…. Really? So there is a bunch of gay men in male male marriages being enslaved to pretend lesbians in lesbian marriage according to this guy? And he seems to be implying that gay marriage (only for women?) has more rights than traditional marriage… Whenever marriage is open to all in a state, the marriages all have the same benefits. The fuck. It was a hard fight to even get the level of equality there is now, no way in hell is any kind of gay marriage going to reap MORE benefits than traditional marriage. What do his friends think? Does anyone agree with this shit?

  27. 27
    PatrickG

    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.

    I called a good friend of mine and asked him if he was still having sex with women. Once he got past the “what the hell are you talking about” stage, he started laughing hysterically, to the point of gasping for breath, and then I heard something that sounded like a body hitting the floor.

    I was worried for a moment, but then he went to speakerphone and started laughing some more.

    Just thought I’d share.

  28. 28
    stever

    But every marriage is a three-party contract that includes the State. That’s why you need a license to found one and a court order to dissolve one.

    That “Everyone is at least secretly hetero” assumption reminds me of the “There are no true atheists” argument. Sometimes it’s a lie, sometimes it is merely a failure of imagination.

  29. 29
    Nick Gotts

    To make this a plausible setting for a cheesy SF made-for-TV movie, you could add feminist control of the water supply, through which are dispensed hormones that render all men helpless with desire when a woman takes a sexual interest in them. A heroic group of male rain-water drinkers resists the Femistazi elite…

  30. 30
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    So… he thinks gay women who marry each other are just feminists who don’t want a husband, but will sleep with men anyway in order to get pregnant and claim money from the government, and that the men they will be sleeping with will be gay men married to other men…. who for some reason are sleeping with women. Oh, and male-male marriages can’t have children naturally, but woman-woman marriages can. And heterosexual marriages will have to pay for it all.

    I just… I don’t even… whut?

    At least he admits sexual liberation is a good thing, towards the bottom of number 2.

  31. 31
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @PatrickG

    Your story made me smile :) thanks.

  32. 32
    =8)-DX

    If this is to be taken in any way seriously there’s going to be some utopian future where who you live with and who you have sex with can be of any gender and/or interchangeable? And where contraception is often used laxly, leading to unwanted pregnancy? But, that actually exists right now! It’s called student dormitory life!

  33. 33
    =8)-DX

    *distopian. Sorry, I got carried away, overexcited, having never experienced the horrid reality of living with a male room-mate while sleeping with multiple females.

  34. 34
    oranje

    @Nick Gotts. Oh, great, that has to be a plot for the first feature film from the Blaze Studios or something…

  35. 35
    frog

    I think my brain just broke.

    He’s invented a new form of word salad. No dogwhistles. Grammar that parses, even if the thoughts they convey are utterly ridiculous. This is the word salad equivalent of a 1960s Jell-O salad: smooth, shiny, kind of pretty colors, and barely resembling food.

  36. 36
    cactuswren

    @imst:

    Maybe it’s cause I’m single and not yet in one of these apparently terrible male-male marriages, but I’m still trying to figure out how I would become an unconsenting father. What with all the sleeping with women I’m not doing. These people don’t seem to be aware of what the gay actually is.

    I got into a most … interesting discussion once with a vocal MRA who argued that as the law stands, he can’t even masturbate in safety because some evil feminist could break into his apartment, steal his used tissue from the wastebasket, use his sperm to make herself pregnant, and then demand child support payments.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site