Les Enfants Terrible

THIS STARTLING WEEKEND READ COMES FROM David Usher, on the subject of gay marriage and why it is unconstitutional. While proponents claim it is a matter of equality, Usher argues that gay marriage would create a vast inequality between men and women.

I have taken the liberty of providing extensive excerpts to tease your interest. And, I daresay that once gay marriage is viewed in this light, it is hard to ignore that it as perhaps the boldest subterfuge by feminists to relegate men, gay and straight, to simply a servant class.

Usher begins by establishing that it is marriage that actually creates a place for men in a reproductive society.

Marriage is the constitutional construct creating a place for men in family and society. Margaret Mead expressed this decisively when she said; “Motherhood is a biological fact, fatherhood a social creation”. The reason why marriage between men and women is an unfettered constitutional right is because its equalizing power is uniquely fundamental to the success of the human race and society itself; where this absolute right does not affect anyone adversely because it is totally inclusive of both sexes.

He then proceeds to point out that the Massachusetts decision, Goodridge, which paved the way for gay marriage, is "over-inclusive" in that it calls for the state to "marry any two people regardless of sexual orientation."

Perhaps most striking about the article, is the use of Roe vs. Wade as a basis for gay marriages unconstitutionality. Roe vs. Wade establishes that women have "chattel control" over human reproduction and therefore "extends the biological fact that men cannot have children into discriminatory public policy."

Where two married women would have sole control over reproduction and chattel control of children, they are not in the same class as gay men. Therefore, Goodridge cannot stand, for it is founded on two dissimilar classifications of litigants, one whose civil rights would be immediately subordinated to the other.

The point then, is that aside from the discrimination against traditional marriage, gay marriage would create a serious civil rights gap for gay men.

In it's current form, Usher argues that marriage is a "natural equal rights institution" with parallels in past racial equality decisions.

Same-sex marriage would create two separate and unequal classes of parents based on sex. If two women married each other, they would have complete control of reproduction and chattel control of children born into the relationship. ..

...It is clear that proponents of same-sex marriage are selling gender segregation, in a manner not unlike Stephen A. Douglas’s losing argument before the civil war suggesting that popular sovereignty made slavery merely a matter of choice.

What struck me about the above-excerpted section is how gay marriage then becomes just an extension of radical feminism's attempts to relegate men to a lesser status.

There are many, many, insightful arguments against the claim that gay marriage is a civil right, in that it creates equality gaps through the creation of "super families."

America has unsuccessfully wrestled with welfare problems for years, and so has the National Organization for Women. Their plan is to reform welfare by creating the married two-mother “super-family”, making the economics of the traditional “two-parent” family work for any two-mother married household regardless of sexual preference.

I call this arrangement a “super-family” because it would have six sources of income: the incomes of two married mothers, two sets of child-support orders, and two sets of welfare entitlements. Heterosexual marriages have only two incomes, and would clearly be an economically inferior choice.

Not surprisingly, Usher notes that NOW has thrown quite a bit of resources into gay marriage, likely because of the creation of the "super family," which would be of great benefit to lesbian couples, would put traditional marriage at a huge economic disadvantage, and for gay male couples...forget about it. They would be reduced to a support mechanism for lesbian parents.

There is so much more to this piece, is insightful and dare I say, startling. Supporters and opponents of the institution should read the whole piece. Personally, I had to read it twice just to get it all, as it is substantive and loaded with legal jargon. Bookmark it, take your time, and come back to it now and again. Once it is fully digested, I am sure you will find it as bracing as I did.

Also, read Usher's arguments why civil unions are also unconstitutional. Finally, read his latest article on how NPR unwittingly proved his overall point for him recently.