On many occasions, Glenn Sacks has expressed undying support for same-sex marriage (or gay marriage as it is called when N.O.W. is playing the victim card). Sack’s latest tome, National Organization for Marriage–Big $ to Bash Gays & Gay Marriage, but Not a Dime to Defend Marriage & Fathers’ Rights, is tremendously off-base and destructive.
I have written Mr. Sacks many times explaining why same-sex marriage (SSM) is the holy grail sought on N.O.W.’s odyssey towards a state of absolute feminist supremacy. I have written many articles on this, which I am quite sure Mr. Sacks has read. Here is a recent one, titled “Gay Marriage and Civil Unions Are Unconstitutional” just in case he hasn’t read one.
It is time for this movement to call Mr. Sacks out on the carpet so he can decide whether he wants to be a men’s and marriage advocate or a gay rights activist. The politics of the two being what they are, one cannot go both ways. Homosexuality is not of any interest to the men’s or father’s rights movement, and we are not about to permit our movement to be dragged down by the problems gay men inflict on themselves by the behavior they insist on pursuing.
In the above article, Mr. Sacks made the fatal mistake of attacking Maggie Gallagher’s work. Maggie has made tremendous advances over the years. She was once aligned with Dave Blankenhorn’s “Institute for American Values”. Blankenhorn is responsible for blaming the divorce revolution on fathers and husbands in his infamous book “Fatherless America’, which ultimately resulted in Congress charging the divorce revolution off on the backs of husbands — the vast majority who did nothing to deserve a divorce in the first place Maggie became aware that Dave’s thesis was a improper, after I took the time to demonstrate why Blankenhorn was wrong. Maggie became increasingly uncomfortable with Blankenhorn’s dithering on same-sex marriage. Maggie took a great risk walking away from Blankenhorn’s feminist machine to found the National Organization for Marriage.
Sacks then inappropriately attacked Maggie for not defending fathers rights. Maggie is not a “father’s rights” advocate and never will be. She is a marriage advocate. Those of us who understand marriage-movement politics are keenly aware that when marriage is restored as a protected and valued institution, father’s rights will no longer be a problem.
I have twenty years of experience in the men’s movement proving that father’s rights will never capture the hearts of most Americans. It is a niche issue. The protection and restoration of marriage has tremendous public support. And, this is precisely what Maggie Gallagher is doing. It makes no sense for Sacks to attack Maggie Gallagher, rather, it is Gallagher who has reason to attack Sacks for backing the National Organization for Women.
Sacks also unfairly attacked Maggie for not fighting the Violence Against Women Act. Maggie is not unusual in traditional conservative circles. Maggie’s focus is on stopping same-sex marriage – a huge task for any one person to take on. Sacks is clearly out of line.
Only a few conservatives such as Phyllis Schlafly understand the danger of VAWA. Respecting Accuracy In Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR) has made great strides killing the U.N. Secretary General’s Report on Domestic Violence, and shattering the myths propounded by the PBS special “Breaking the Silence”. {2] RADAR still has much work to do educating all of America. It will take years to teach Congress that these laws are tremendously damaging to women, men, and marriage in their present form. We cannot expect conservatives to strongly oppose V.A.W.A. until they truly understand the issues and feel comfortable taking strong positions.
Sacks made yet another fatal mistake accusing Maggie Gallagher of “gay bashing”. There is nothing that can remotely be considered gay bashing on the National Organization for Marriage website. Their mission is entirely to protect the institution of heterosexual marriage from radical feminist takeover.
Sacks made yet another fatal mistake making a derogatory assertion about the “Christian Right”. Dear Mr. Sacks: the only thing that matters here is that same sex marriage is stopped in its tracks. The issue here is not liberalism or conservatism. The issue is radical feminism. Please keep your focus on the problem.
In a nutshell, for readers who are not familiar with the structural dynamic behind SSM, here is my shirtsleeve explanation why SSM is the final embodiment of N.O.W’s plan for feminist supremacy:
Heterosexual marriage is the only institution that completely erases all physical, economic, and social disparities that exist genetically and culturally between men and women. Same-sex marriage would necessarily magnify every difference and disparity to the maximum, and would in essence turn America into a nation comprised of two classes – those who are part of society, and pariahs who support it – the classifications depending solely on sex. Where men cannot bear children, it becomes immediately clear that same-sex marriage would be an unconstitutionally-discriminatory institution.
As all men’s advocates (and a few well-informed conservatives) are well aware, every legal vehicle is already in place for N.O.W. to seize pre-emptive control of the institution of marriage. The only thing missing is the “right” for any two women to marry each other.
For those who do not understand the paragraph above, here is a 2000-foot aerial view of the impact of federal policy on marriage. Divorce and illegitimacy are federally-entitled activities. Since there are no federal entitlements for marriage, women are choosing entitlements over marriage in droves. Congress has been entitling marriage out of existence for over forty years. Now, the National Organization for Women wants to resurrect marriage using the entitlement structure to create the hyper-feminist family consisting of a mother and a mother.
Sexual preference has nothing to do with N.O.W.’s agenda. Gays and lesbians are merely the stage props being used to create a victim-politics sideshow distracting everyone from what N.O.W. really wants. The Goodridge case in Massachusetts is prima facie evidence to this end: the Supreme court did not order the state to marry gays and lesbians. It ordered the state to marry any two human beings regardless of sexual preference.
Consider what marriage-absence has already done to the important institution of fatherhood and legitimate husbandry. Illegitimacy is at record levels today. 36.2% of children are born out of wedlock. Roughly half of children born into a marriage will also find themselves fatherless. Divorce is declining, but only because marriage rates are declining. The “fathers” of these children are held to extraordinary standards of child support, while at best only 25% have reasonable parental rights, and virtually none have enforceable parental rights.
Anyone who does not know that SSM is the greatest threat to marriage and family ever invented by the National Organization for Women should take their word for it:
- N.O.W’s page on lesbian rights states the core of N.O.W’s primary agenda. On the left of this page are their favorite issues, Abortion, “Economic Justice” (referring to more entitlements for single and intentionally-divorced women), “Ending Sex Discrimination” (a one-way feminist street), “Lesbian Rights” (behind which SSM hides), “Promoting Diversity and Ending Racism” (which intentionally destroys heterosexual marriage and has destroyed the black male in black society). None of these are concepts that any rational or humane person can possibly support.
- N.O.W’s latest vector, designed to move “Gay Marriage” towards SSM as a unilateral right of women, is clearly stated on their “Equal Marriage NOW” page.
- N.O.W’s new thrust, a “Freedom To Marry Week” now intends to subvert Valentine’s day into a “women’s right to marry each other” week.
In its document “Same-Sex Marriage is a Feminist Issue”, N.O.W uses the words “gay”, “lesbian”, and “same-sex” interchangeably. Anyone familiar with Frankfurt school methodology knows how words are blurred, misrepresented, re-defined, and ultimately merged to execute a hidden agenda completely unrelated to the stated purpose. This document closes with a open-ended and vastly broad manifesto declaring the right of any two women (comprising a “same-sex couple”) to marry each other:
- “This right-wing propaganda also ignores the fact that many same-sex couples, a large number of them with children, already exist, and will continue to exist regardless of a constitutional amendment. Won’t giving these families the rights and benefits they deserve make them stronger? And if more families are flourishing, isn’t that good for marriage in general and our society as a whole?”
- “The struggle for equal marriage rights is a feminist issue, because women will not be equal until they can pursue their dreams free from discrimination.”
N.O.W’s document “Equal Marriage NOW: Talking Points” proves, beyond all possible doubt, N.O.W.’s military objective: to create the right for any two women to marry each other regardless of sexual preference. Words have meaning, ladies and gentlemen. Take this to heart, because it is your heart feminists are after. The talking points issue a flat-out demand for the right of women to “marry their partner regardless of gender”. Please note the interchangeable use of the words “gender” and “partner” — words that have entirely different meanings:
- “The right wing is telling women they have to marry a man in order to get married—holding relationships of women with men on a pedestal. Not allowing women to marry other women promotes a patriarchal society where a woman’s economic security is dependent on her relationships with men.”
- “Feminism is about having choices and opportunities. Women are free to choose a partner and should have the opportunity to marry or not marry their partner regardless of gender.”
Those who still do not take this seriously should consider this. N.O.W. has handsomely achieved every illegitimate goal it ever set out to accomplish. The handwriting is on the wall. Every American must now rise to oppose the National Organization for Women. This includes Christians, those on the left who do not want to see the futures of women and children destroyed, and even gay men who will get little out of same-sex marriage except two or more child support orders (most of the gay men I have discussed this with agree with me).
Mr. Sacks: you have a very big decision to make. If you want to be a gay rights advocate, go do that somewhere else. Do not think we are stupid enough to permit anyone to import hard-core radical feminist agenda into the middle of either the marriage or men’s movements.
I encourage everyone to send a message to Mr. Sacks at Glenn@GlennSacks.com. He needs to understand that until he demonstrates an unswerving opposition to same-sex marriage and civil unions in all his venues, we cannot trust him to a part of the legitimate men’s movement or the marriage movement itself.
————————————————-
David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition
Elusive Wapiti said,
Thank you for your service as a pre-eminent supporter of men’s and father’s rights. I applaud your steadfastness in the face of sometimes vehement and nasty opposition. I wish there were more fellows like you out there who can articulately make your case in a public manner.
I think you’re being too hard on Sacks. I too disagree with the emphasis he places on homosexual rights, and homosexual marriage. I oppose homosexual marriage as well, on moral grounds, but at the same time posit that it is a logical consequence of the commingling of Church and State when it comes to the marriage issue. Given our current laws, it is difficult articulate an internally consistent argument against awarding a phony state marriage certificate to homosexuals. That said, I think that his support of homosexual rights is a peripheral issue when viewed in light of his very public support for men and fathers.
I think what Sacks was saying was that the pro-marriage conservatives in the marriage debate, including religious cons (a group that I consider myself a member of) are rarely father- and man-friendly. As I said in my comment over at Glenn’s blog this morning, marriage activists rightly bemoan the steadily decreasing marriage rates and no-fault divorce. But their solutions to the marriage crisis usually have to do with enticing men to take the risk of marrying a woman and completely ignoring the systemic reasons why this was a bad idea, something I think that you would agree with me is a patently risky thing for a man to do these days. Moreover, their solution to father absence is usually mother-centric: a strong tendency toward mother-only custody, a tendency to want to hammer the man for his lack of responsibility (however they define responsible), and to ensure that he ponies up a goodly portion of his after-tax income to his ex wife as a bailment to keep out of peonage.
In addition, there were very few mentions of the real threat to marriage, the threat the preceded the homosexual community’s active pushing for the legalization of homosexual marriage. And that was the State’s usurpation of marriage. Things were only bound to go downhill once that happened, and since the State uses marriage as a vehicle to pass out goodies in the form of legal rights and benefits, there is ever-increasing pressure on the State to admit more and more to the club.
I see Sack’s support for homosexual marriage as the final nail in the coffin of a corpse that has been long dead–i.e. marriage–but just didn’t know it was dead yet. And I’d like to think that there is sufficient room under the MRA and FRA tents to allow for disagreements such as these, especially when he and you and I appear to agree on the major points about the state of the culture and laws in regards to men, fathers, and marriage.
Thanks for all that you do. I read what you write with interest. Keep the Faith.
December 9, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Roger Knight said,
As long as the public in general and those they elect continue to treat this as a “niche” issue, I do not give a flying f–k what the gays do and whether government recognizes their arrangements or not.
I believe we will win in the end, if only because the children of divorce will become voting citizens in sufficient number to force a change. They KNOW what has happened and they will DEMAND that it be fixed.
When that happens, it will not matter what the gays do. They are only 3 to 4% of the population. At most. Letting women marry each other will not destroy the natural leverage we men have:
No sperm. No babies.
Those of us already burned have the option of withholding our labor and our money. If ENOUGH of us were to do take that stand, COME HELL OR HIGH WATER, this evil system will collapse. It is those who pay the child support like good little boys who prevent us from winning.
I suggest screaming for the enforcement of the Peonage Law as a way of leverging against the license suspensions and the arrest sweeps. When we choose to not allow such tactics coerce us, then we can say:
“Please enforce the Peonage Law,” nice and quietly.
Cut off the money. Cut off the sperm. We win.
December 9, 2007 at 10:58 pm
college activist said,
..A marraige strike …Is a much more forcefull….(Burn em out sort of tactic) I agree!!..but may be the only option left!!
December 10, 2007 at 12:07 am
David R. Usher said,
The reason why the divorce revolution succeeded is because the men’s rights movement didn’t wake up until the mid eighties. And, between then and now they were largely a bunch of political idiots. One cannot win in the face of the feminist onslaught by playing niche politics. While feminists courted the media and major political interest groups, we were arguing about what we should do. The movement actually did nearly nothing until 2005, and did nothing of national consequence until the past couple of years.
Since the movement has only been “on the map” for no more than two or three years (and weak at that), it should come as no surprise that the majority of conservatives don’t get it. We have a lot of work to do. And, there is nothing that will make conservatives run faster than to see a major leader of the men’s movement running around calling for same-sex marriage.
Sacks is a substantial threat to the advancement of our cause. Let me prove it to you. In the late 1990’s, Family Research Council put out a pamphlet identifying ACFC as being associated with NAMBLA (National Man Boy Love Association). Some feminists planted a rumor and FRC bought it. They refused to return ACFC calls trying to straighten the thing out. In this case, we have a real live MR advocate coming out calling for gay marriage. This will close doors for years. Sacks must stop this immediately. Any FR/MR who gives half a damn needs to get on the stick.
Now, regardless of what this movement does, whether it be a marriage strike or working the legitimate marriage movement, in order for it to count for anything this movement must be strongly connected to the larger political world. If Sacks gets his way, nobody will give a hoot about anything that anybody in the movement does.
If Glenn wants to push gay rights, let him go work for the Rainbow Coalition. We can’t afford to have him queering our doo. If he truly intends to be a part of this movement, he has to stop supporting the biggest goal the Supremacists have ever sought.
Wapiti, this is not a question of “emphasis”. What would you call a person who sits around complaining about the plight of Jews, while saluting Hitler? Would he be a true friend of the Jews?
Anyway, I have come very close to walking away from this movement entirely. The movement keeps doing some tremendously stupid things and driving away all possible political support. If folks are not going to be politically wise, what is the reason for anybody being in this movement?
Take a look at what RADAR has accomplished in about two years of existence. RADAR has nothing to do with the men’s movement. It works the issue, and it works it brilliantly. And it has had more impact than any men’s organization ever dreamed of. If you want to win, follow the instruction manual, guys. Work the politics, work the issues. And, when somebody does something really stupid, talk about it!!
December 10, 2007 at 12:29 am
David R. Usher said,
You have the advantage of not repeating the past forty years of mistakes the men’s movement made. Work the marriage movement. Teach Maggie Gallagher and everyone else something to expand their capacity to stop N.O.W. agenda, regardless of the issue. Show all men and women that feminism has been incredibly damaging to the lives and futures of women and children (and lets not forget the men). Build networks into any and all large political groups who share the same fundamental interests, and bring your message of truth to them. Show them some pro-marriage policy that makes economic and social sense, and you will win.
December 10, 2007 at 12:35 am
college activist said,
December 10, 2007 at 12:44 am
college activist said,
December 10, 2007 at 12:51 am
college activist said,
In 1965, Senator Patrick Moynihan was condemned for his observation of the consequences of family breakdown:
“From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any rational expectations about the future — that community asks for and gets chaos.”
December 10, 2007 at 12:59 am
Roger Knight said,
When we express skepticism to this proposition, you bring up a dirty trick the faminazis pulled on ACFC, slandering them as being linked to something truly evil. NAMBLA is simply the homosexual version of Mohammed’s consumation of his marriage to 9 year old Aisha.
Which most non-Muslims, and even a few Muslims see as fundamentally evil.
People just don’t see two consenting adults of the same gender wanting some kind of official recognition of their relationship as being evil. At least not as evil as statutorily raping a child.
The real problem illustrated by your example is that those who gave us no-fault divorce and the Child Support Crusade are not going to listen to sweet reason.
Or return ACFC’s phone calls.
They will, however, listen when given the incentive of a show of FORCE.
Cut off the money. Cut off the sperm. Plead the Peonage Law EVERY TIME you go to court, if you feel you must, they HATE that!
This strategy will work if it is performed by a SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF MEN WHO VALUE THEIR FREEDOM AND RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS THEIR DUTY TO OUR CHILDREN.
Sorry for shouting.
We do this, we win. It won’t matter what Glenn does. It won’t matter if you take your ball and go home. Though we would rather you did not.
And it certainly will not matter what libel or slander the feminazis and the peonage criminals pull.
December 10, 2007 at 2:23 am
David R. Usher said,
Baskerville’s point was to notice that young men are terrified of marriage and naturally avoiding it because it is an unacceptable risk. That is far different from a few hotheads trying to prove a point. I have seen guys sail off doing these things many times, and it always amounts to nothing. I’ll bet you can’t even get 500 guys to do it. Ask anyone that ever had anything to do with the “Men’s Manifesto”, or the various prison hunger strikes, for example. Even ACFC’s biggest protests went virtually unnoticed because it was not connected to the larger conservative movement. I was astonished that nobody gave a care about the 225-city protest I organized for ACFC in 1991. It was quite a learning lesson: you have to be connected to be heard and to be effective.
It is well and good to have a deep desire for change. The trick is to use all that energy wisely. Turning your anger into love is the way to change things out there. Teach the rest of America how feminism hurt the majority of women, children, and men, and you will get much farther than whining all day about your lot in life. Feminists are the worst protectors of women. We have 45 years of proof that this is the case. If you are a man, show them that husbands are the best protectors. Push for change to make that happen.
Again, what Sacks is doing will alienate conservatives like the plague. It might take me with it. This must be corrected now.
December 10, 2007 at 2:50 am
David R. Usher said,
Republicans would have effected changes to correct the problem had we been connected with conservatives in the 1992-1996 era (preempted by Dave Blankenhorn). Since we weren’t connected, Republicans had nothing to pass when the enactedt welfare reform, so they ignored the issue. We have the keys to completing the two welfare reform targets that went unaddressed.
Get connected and we can still pass them. Gotta be connected, my friends.
December 10, 2007 at 3:28 am
Roger F. Gay said,
Baskerville’s Outrage Review Offers Cutting-Edge Analysis
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=4903
The restoration of marriage is as opposite support of SSM as the war against fathers. The legal destruction of marriage and family by its reclassification from the private to the public sphere is the basis of SSM, how the destruction of marriage and family was accomplished, and why fathers no longer have basic constitutional rights. And yes, it was no-fault divorce and the child support crusade that provided the path to destruction.
December 10, 2007 at 6:53 am
Roger F. Gay said,
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/2004/gay082004.htm
That was 2004. Since then, the religious right dropped support for the anti-father movement; including the federal child support enforcement program.
If there are any elements of the religious right still supporting the anti-father movement, I’d like to hear about it.
December 10, 2007 at 6:57 am
Roger F. Gay said,
Why I oppose the federal marriage amendment
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/03/gay121103.htm
An alternative to the federal marriage amendment
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/03/gay122903.htm
December 10, 2007 at 7:17 am
David R. Usher said,
Obviously, SSM will not reconstruct marriage in any productive manner, but would largely turn both marriage and divorce into feminist institutions. As this happens, custody considerations from “genetic fathers” will necessarily assume tertiary status, leaving men in an “odd man out” position, while women battle amongst themselves (which is already going on in Massachusetts). At that time, he was not yet ready to entertain our answers. But this is changing in the upper eschelons of some of the think tanks.
I do recall seeing data that 2/3 of the SSM marriages in Massachusetts are between women. If that does not speak much more convincingly than the analysis I provide above, I don’t know what does.
I would like to clarify one crucial point here: my analysis of the Sacks situation is not an ego thing. I am calling it as a see it, as any dedicated analyst would. This article is not what some would like to hear. This is a nasty issue, and a necessary one to get right. If we can’t get it right, we certainly cannot expect anybody else to get it right either. We have a much deeper and more personal colllective awareness of both the problem and the answer than anyone else does. This necessarily places a higher standard on us to get it right.
And we must get this right. If we fail, we will end up in an odd-man-out situation with the very conservatives who could help us, and whom we could help. This young bridge must be fortified, not blown apart out of sheer political stupidity.
December 10, 2007 at 8:30 am
NotNOW said,
“And I’d like to think that there is sufficient room under the MRA and FRA tents to allow for disagreements such as these, especially when he and you and I appear to agree on the major points about the state of the culture and laws in regards to men, fathers, and marriage.”
So would I. I realize the question is one of resources, time and energy, as in which issue to fight first. I also take David’s point, in that he is trying to get the men’s movement aligned with an existing political force as a means to get things done. To that extent he is correct.
But this all-or-nothing approach smacks of “taking the ball and going home.” Men’s issues are not necessarily Christian Republican issues. Men get raped in family courts in red states and blue states both, but for different reasons.
Judges in feminized states hate men. “Men Bad, Women Good” is an easy call for them. No Brainer.
Judges in states where politics is dominated by Christianity, on the other hand, are still in the “patriarchal” system mindset, and are completely suspicious of male motives to boot.
Under the recent industrial patriarchal system, women WERE child care providers; mommies stayed home with the kids, and dad earned a living and supported them. Judges who were raised / indoctrinated under this system still believe that women are the best child care providers, and want it to stay that way. It is easy, then, for them to sentence divorced or unwed dads to indentured servitude, and to give moms custody. That’s why you hear of judges saying to men seeking custody: “I know you just want custody so you can cut your support payments”. Men’s value in the industrial society was financial; men concentrated their efforts on money, for that was their purpose.
Men are no more innately sexual than women, but they had more opportunity to behave so under the patriarchal system. Under the old system, female sexuality was repressed; this was the only way for men to know who their children were. Old school right-wing judges remember the old days when women had little opportunity for licentiousness, and so, to these judges, women are madonnas and their sexuality is not suspect. Men, on the other hand, were expected to exercise self-control in spite of their greater sexual opportunities. These judges are willing to punish men, but not women, for sexuality. Hence right-wing judges deal harshly with fathers, especially out-of-wedlock fathers, but not with mothers. This thinking is the basis for the double standard. It is also why I cannot trust the Christian Right.
If men were treated differently in red and blue states, then we would have a basis for trust in one party or the other. Do I have to choose the party that has treated men with the least disrespect? This would amount to settling for better treatment from the camp guards, and I am not willing to do that.
December 10, 2007 at 9:51 am
PolishKnight said,
There’s the old joke where if two lesbians go out on a dinner date, who pays? By the same token, I don’t worry about same-sex marriage since even already lesbians are tearing each other’s eyes out in a cat fight for custody and support. One of them gets to be the designated “man” in the relationship and they get a taste of the system in all it’s glory.
NotNow is correct that the right has tossed men under the bus when it comes to out-of-wedlock bastard children but at the same time, they are being emotionally manipulated by the threat of such women exercising their abortion rights if so-called child-support is not promised. This situation does at least offer these men the alternative of not becoming fathers out-of-wedlock. Eventually, if young women wind up unable to be impregnated by a working man and marrying each other, they’ll wind up paying their own bills. Good luck to them because they’ll need it.
December 10, 2007 at 11:58 am
Eric said,
I suppose that you will be/are a “radical” to Glenn just as I am…
People just don’t get your points above, yet so true regarding the milquestoast, Glenn Sacks.
No long diatribe here. Just an acknowledgement that some actually do know what you are talking about and appreciate it. And, more than likely because others don’t bother to educate themselves, verify facts and history…
Eric
December 10, 2007 at 12:18 pm
David R. Usher said,
N.O.W. demanded foundationless divorce, and men gave it to them.
N.O.W. demanded sole custody and control of families in divorce. Men gave it to them.
N.O.W. demanded the right to kill babies. Men gave it to them
N.O.W. demanded control of educational systems. Men gave it to them.
N.O.W. demanded entitlements to do all the above. Men gave them most of it.
N.O.W. demands the right to take over the institution of marriage, and some men right here who are supposed to be men’s rights advocates actually want to give it to them.
The political stupidity of this movement continues…..
December 10, 2007 at 12:29 pm
conservativation said,
Regardless where one feels SSM fits in the scheme of marriage destruction….it FITS, thats really all that matters. Your attempts to refocus the movement on marriage are spot on as well. Ive been busy gathering anecdotal data from a divorce forum on a Christian website. I can tell you that the divorce industry will not be stopped by focusing on fathers rights, and sad as a hurting father is, fix the disease and the symptoms subside.
College activist you are correct, the religious right or however you call it (I guess Im one of them) has dropped the ball big time and has become even a force for the opposition that is more insidious then the secular. Using scripture and Christian marriage false expectations, evangelical feminists have created a paradigm in the church where they can actually get it right on SSM, and that provides cover for them getting it wrong on divorce and marriage.
Quietly the church is leading the way to the destruction of the family. While on the surface the church may oppose SSM, you’d be surprised at how much individual Christians will now rationalize regarding even their most steadfast issues like abortion and divorce. The acceptance of NOW’s positions on divorce in a twisted scripture way has led to a weakening of standards across the board until I see the same garbage back in my face in churches on abortion and SSM as well.
Standards are slipping, down down down, family coming apart jades the very cornerstone of society.
December 10, 2007 at 1:55 pm
The Gonzman said,
I’ve said many times that the problem with the Gay Agenda is not the “Gay” but the “Agenda.”
As an example, propose getting the government out of the marriage business altogether - turn secular marriage into just another contract - open it to anyone; hell, me and my 70 year old father could get a civil union for inheritance, insurance, etc….
Make Marriage a church sacrament.
The gays won’t go for that. It will give them everything their talking points profess to want - BUT IT WILL NOT BE GOOD ENOUGH. They have already said so.
Now - ask yourself “Why?”
Glenn, et al, are making the mistake of treating the propaganda as good faith (When it has been amply shown that it is not offered in good faith over and over again) and not asking, “Why?”
December 10, 2007 at 2:03 pm
PolishKnight said,
Should we take this to mean that you find men giving women equal rights in the workplace to be “political stupidity?”
David, is this really you or are you a pod person?
December 10, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Eric said,
Instead of questioning, perhap you would benefit from studying (just a little bit) and come up with an educated opinion instead of a gut instinct that was been manipulated by the feminazis throught the indoctrination centers (public/college schools) that you seem to have not understood.
Here’s an idea:
Study the facts, the history and statements made by David Usher (especially the brain washing parts) as you divorce your innner/personal thoughts and accept the truth. It will become refreshingly apparent. I promise…
Eric
December 10, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Elusive Wapiti said,
You make a good point about not alienating the religious cons who should be our natural allies in this fight. Advocating homosexual marriage may do just that, as it seems to be something tangible that religious cons can look at and say “no more”.
I imagine that they won’t cotton too well to a very vocal and visible MRA voiciferously advocating something that is abhorrent to the vast majority of religious conservatives, and a very large minority of the American people. So, on that point, you are right to rebuke Sacks. However, looking at the influence and megaphone that Sacks has, he has the potential to do lots of good for the F/MRA community, as opposed to the as yet unrealized harm he may do.
I say this because I see this fight as one of having many fronts, of which the marriage piece it is only one. There is another side of it that has little to do directly with marriage, in which Sacks if fully engaged, and that is the legal and cultural aspect which is so slanted against men. This is especially in regards to cultural artifacts (i.e. the bumbling male, the abusive-controlling husband, the pedophile, etc), gene burglary, C4M, and child support. Despite the importance of these issues to our cause, it is tough to get the social cons really motivated to care about any of these issues that Sacks engages upon because they’re seen as niche issues.
The marriage issue is a separate fight from all of this (while still a part of our overall effort). Also, I can’t imagine that many religious cons listen to his left-coast show. Thus I don’t think that there’ll be much adverse effect from his advocacy of homosexuals gaining the ‘right’ to obtain a state-sanctioned marriage, and as far as I’m concerned, if homosexuals want a fraudulent piece of paper, let them have it. I’m with Stephanie Coontz (strangely enough) and agree with her call to get government out of the marriage business completely, and to stop passing bennies out on the basis of marital status.
You make a really good point with this quote:
This is exactly how to get traction with the religious cons. As many of us have likely personally expereinced, you don’t get much traction with the masses when you itemize how bad men and fathers have it. No one’s listening, because it doesn’t affect them. Non-custodial fathers are still a minority, and we don’t garner much sympathy, thanks to Blankenhorn and company.
However, when you make it relevant to socially conservative men, women, and children; when you personalize the adverse effects of feminism on the family, on men, on women, and on children, and now suddenly people will listen to what you have to say.
Sir, I respect you for your seniority in this movement. I am a relative neophyte, and a dilettante at that. However, I don’t think that evicting him from the F/MRA ranks for his lack of adherence to a strict political platform would serve us well.
“As an example, propose getting the government out of the marriage business altogethe…make marriage a church sacrament”
I agree completely.
Agreed, it’s high time
December 10, 2007 at 3:31 pm
David R. Usher said,
It does not take many people to change the world. What it takes is a few people who know what they are doing, and the connections to make it happen. We have the few people. The connections are developing and I would be extremely disappointed, as would most of us, were these connections to evaporate. Necessarily, I will be making it very clear to those I am working with that I do not consider Mr. Sacks a part of the core movement — perhaps a fringe operator at best.
December 10, 2007 at 6:33 pm
GreatMRNI said,
All Men (of faith or otherwise) need to fight against Same Sex Marriage.
Glenn Sack either doesn’t understand the long term feminist agenda or refuses to accept it as truth. This is a mistake. That said, he does bring some positive things to the table, but he still tries to appease feminists. That needs to stop.
December 10, 2007 at 10:02 pm
college activist said,
…If we all can’t agree on a proper form of action…Maybee we can just agree to disagree….
But still focus on our common belief that there is some anti-male hysteria that is taking it’s greatest toll on society’s most vulnerable….
..this anti-male scourge is affecting our boys/young men the most!!
December 10, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Mjaybee said,
Given the evils of family law measured against the evils of gay marriage, there is no comparison. Family law issues should be of far more importance to men interested in restoring some sanity to the institution of marriage.
Your obsession with gay marriage is evidence of the complete inability to focus that has crippled the parents’ rights and men’s rights movements. No plan, blanket issues that all seem important and a lack of strategy that fails to build alliances.
No wonder the movement is in the shape it is today. Glenn is throwing sops to pathetic feminist blogs, and you are railing against peripheral issues such as gay marriage.
Speaking for many single fathers like myself, we surrender to the gross incompetence and poor tactics of the “leaders” of the men’s movement.
December 10, 2007 at 11:15 pm
David R. Usher said,
Lets take a moment to look at this from a cockpit view. What Sacks is doing is exactly how N.O.W. co-opted the church, the state, and federal government. They get somebody who is respected in an organization, often by paying them off, planting somebody, or using sex or threats of sex abuse allegations, to get them to do their bidding. Or they send in somebody who has some sort of credentials and is a smooth talker to come on strong. The actor does some things to gain trust, and then they start asserting the agenda of the organization they wish to take over. This is the classic Marcusian / Frankfurt school methodology. I have seen feminists attempt to take over various organizations.
One such takeover attempt was the Missouri Family Alliance, which in 1991 consisted of about 80 advocates around the state. I was Legislative Analyst at the time. Then-Representative Kaye Steinmetz, Missouri’s top feminist legislator sent in a feminist plant to our annual organizational agenda meeting, where plans and papers were to be evaluated for statewide adoption. A sharply-dressed, cute woman nobody had ever seen before waltzed in with a professionally-done 90-page document that sounded fabulous. She was a very persuasive talker, and had most everybody fooled. The board was just about to do a vote to adopt the document as the main agenda for the next year, when realized that the document was a reshuffling of what Kaye Steinmetz had be trying to get passed. I stopped the vote, and called the issue out on the floor. Everyone was shocked for a few minutes, but then realized I was right. She ran out of the room and I never saw her again.
I would like to know who is paying Glenn Sacks bills. Money does not fall out of trees. He spends a tremendous amount of time doing this. His story is that he is a stay-at-home dad. I don’t see him working closely with anyone or any major organization except himself. He was not involved in the DC 2007 Rally, and I heard no discussion that he was even invited. There is monkey business going on here.
Sacks is the only “fathers rights” advocate I am aware of that is pushing SSM. He plays the same hate cards that feminists do, and attacks anyone opposing SSM. Where SSM is intended to end fatherhood, husbandry, and heterosexual marriage, I find it quite difficult to consider him a father’s rights advocate at all. At minimum, this positions him on the outer fringe of this movement. His repetitive support for SSM indicates he has a very big stake in SSM. He has not revealed who else he is working for. I think we have a right to insist on full disclosure.
Glenn has not responded to this piece either publicly or via back-channels (he has never responded or been willing to discuss the issue in the past either). He knows he is wrong, and he is trying to lay low so as not to attract any more attention. Glenn has my full attention and I will not forget about it. There is a smoking gun here. The truth will out, all in good time.
December 10, 2007 at 11:22 pm
amfortas said,
And Glenn takes a strong stance too with the various enemies of men and marriage and society that he focuses his attention on. He does a great job not only as a psywar commander but as a logistics man too. I have several times had a question mark over some of Glenn’s tactics and thinking, but they are running neck and neck with the question marks I sometimes pose to you. (probably why neither of you seem to like me much).
There are nuances of force-marshalling that one can take issue with, with both of you, but you are both Generals facing particular fronts and arguing over whose tactics and strategies are better. Is this an artifact of the stress of war, I wonder. You and Glenn both, are great warriors worthy of respect and some understanding. I take seriously what you both say and marvel at the tenacity and skill you both bring. But David, you and Glenn command quite different force types, suited to different theatre operations.
I seem to recall Generals Patton and Eisenhower and Montgomery having heated argument too, with some slandering of each others style and person. Battle does bring that unfortunate behaviour out from time to time. But they at least did not do their arguing in full vision of the enemy and thereby give succour to them (as well as a measure of entertainment).
And to all those outside the immediate battle discussed here, look to the contributions of ‘lesser’ ranks whose inputs are essential - just as those Generals at Normandy would have been in deep shit were it not for AVM Bouchier who organised and provided all the close quarter air support. I bet few here have ever heard of Bouchier. Some of these other contributors here are your support.
You are in danger of alienating, David. You cannot, and Glenn cannot fight without the support elements and contributors.
So get with the program. The enemy is THAT way, not sitting at the chart table with you. If one of you has a thing about the enemy’s sartorial elegance, who cares? If the enemy has tactics and resources that can be used to subvert their intent, then let us let the attempt be made. If the focus of one of you is fast tank movement and the other is emplacement digging, let the priorities determine. Both are worthy tactics and one can support the other. But don’t overlook the air support without which you won’t even get onto the soddin’ beach.
I am glad to see that you and Glenn communicate and discuss matters. But David, temper your criticisms with some praise and attempt to understand Glenn’s strategic imperatives. Maybe he will do the same with you. But if you can’t get along, then stick to the fronts you are each dealing with and stop intefering with one another.
December 11, 2007 at 12:47 am
fourthwire said,
I believe that Dave Usher is correct. I have been smelling a rat with respect to Glenn Sacks and his motives with respect to SSM and N.O.W. for some time now.
Mjaybee’s point about the evils of family law being of overriding concern in comparison with the evils of SSM is indeed relevant, although not as he believes.
Such tactics are called “misdirection”.
Simply because the current state of family law is so toxic to father’s rights and families in general, it does not mean that SSM provides no dangers of its own to American society.
Feminists’ dream of completely displacing men from marriage may not succeed, but there’s no limit to the magnitude of potential damage possible in their attempt to impose that end on our society.
For what it’s worth, I found Dave Usher’s recounting of the takeover attempt of the Missouri Family Alliance by Kaye Steinmetz’ “plant” most educational in terms of getting a peek at feminist tactics.
And anyone with a modicum of imagination ought to wonder just how far feminists will go to subvert and overcome obstacles to their objectives.
Who is paying Glenn Sacks’ meal ticket?
SSM provides zero benefits to men’s and father’s rights.
That Sacks continues to support SSM is a red flag. I believe that there’s a hidden agenda at work here, and as Mr. Usher points out, the truth will out, all in good time.
And the Gonzman’s post highlights the nature of the actual SSM agenda as eloquently as anyone posting on this thread.
December 11, 2007 at 3:00 am
Mjaybee said,
The movement is more than a movement to be embraced by the right wing - if it is to succeed, it needs a bigger base than one just encompassing the political right, a group that has abandoned consideration of fathers to the same degree the far left has.
For all your ranting, I’ve seen no statistics to support any of the theses of your argument. Are you raising money for any legislative activities in the coming year> Are you contacting congressmen with whom you might have a dialogue or visibility? Do they return your calls?
My suspicion is that the answer to these questions is a flat “no”, followed by an adjustment of your tinfoil hat.
December 11, 2007 at 8:37 am
conservativation said,
My primary concern though is the notion that by opposing SSM there will be an appeal to the so called religious right, and suddenly with that in common the church is on board the program. Ain’t so.
The church combats SSM vehemently now, all the while inadvertently facilitating divorces in the midst, and offering little but the same anti-male propaganda we see everywhere else, but worse, wrapped in scripture.
December 11, 2007 at 8:46 am
Roger F. Gay said,
However, be aware that there are many fakes out there who carry the banner but are not sincere in either religion or conservativism. Their occupation is soley to encourage regious conservatives to stick with the Republican Party - no matter how far they go astray. IMO, those who write response commentary, should show no mercy to those who carry pro-marriage and family, pro-Family Values flags while promoting an anti-family agenda.
December 11, 2007 at 11:53 am
David R. Usher said,
I am not discrediting the movement when I point out that the movement has been politically stupid in the past. It is a fact of our history, cited for reflection and comparison. In this case, is being politically stupid again. We are a niche movement who can never get anything passed on our own. Ask Baskerville or any of the DCRally leadership — this is common knowledge. I wrote this piece because it would be irresponsible for me to sit silently while this movement loses connections with conservatives by following Sacks down the feminist toilet.
I have always been known as someone who talks about the hard issues that need to be addressed. We can’t afford major Abilene paradoxes in this movement (Abilene paradox defined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox). It is painful in the short run to deal with these things, but it is far less painful than what happens if we don’t deal with them.
conservativation: This is about politics, trends, and what happens when folks take positions that alienate them from the larger political world. There are no studies to cite, so it is absurd to call for them. Politics 101 says that you do not alienate those who would align with you. Sacks is aligned with liberal causes, and attacks conservatives. Bad idea. Since feminists own the Democrat party, his chances are about zero. Enacting SSM will simply abort every man’s chance to be a husband and father.
December 11, 2007 at 2:26 pm
John Howard said,
It’s basically three parts:
Stop genetic engineering babies with a federal “Egg and Sperm law” that prohibits creating children any way except fertilizing an egg of a woman with the sperm of a man.
Preserve the right of all marriages to conceive with their own genes.
Give federal recognition to state civil unions that are defined as all of the rights of marriage except the right to conceive together with the couple’s own genes.
States couldn’t give marriage to same-sex couples because the spouses in a marriage could not be prohibited from conceiving together. It’s the sort of permanent, principled distinction between marriage and civil unions that all the candidates are grasping for, and it gives the rights that feminists and gays claim to be asking for, so if we put it in their lap, we might just end up with marriage rights preserved and SSM stopped.
I think David might like it because it stops the advance of SSM and Roger might like it because it requires women to actually use men’s sperm, not just engineer some from their own genes, and even Sacks and Blankenhorn and Gallagher too might all agree too, if this was put in their laps.
I have a blog with links on same-sex conception technology. Those new stem cells from adults can be tweaked to make opposite sex gametes, too, so it’s just a few more years before they try seeing if they work to make babies.
December 12, 2007 at 1:18 am
Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » University of Colorado Pays $2.5 Million To Settle Sexual Harassment Case said,
December 13, 2007 at 7:14 am
DaveK said,
http://www.courthouseforum.com/forums/view.php?id=983839
with that gang as friends… we won’t need enemies. The LAST thing I (and I hope the bulk of us) want is for our movement to have too much in common with the radical right… or the radical left for that matter.
Personally I’ve never seen a persuasive argument that SSM should be anything other than a non-issue for us, and to waste our limited resources fighting it while the rug is being legislated out from under us seems ill concieved to me. The failure of marriage in this country is real and has absolutely nothing to do with SSM, and reversing the trend will not hinge on defeating SSM - but rather strengthening the legal underpinnings of marriage.
IMO as long as someone can go in and get a divorce as effortlessly as they currently can, can GAIN from that divorce financially even if they’re completely in the wrong, and can expect to walk away from it with sole custody of the most important thing shared in marriage - children, we won’t see any change in the abuse of divorce. Stopping SSM won’t change these fundamentals… not a bit.
As far as the focus on Glen goes, I can only see the accusation of Womans Supremacist as pure Ad Homimin, an opinion founded in black and white thinking that brooks no opposition. This is the sort of divisive internal dissent that has weakened the Feminist Movement - but at least they were well along before it became a major issue, we can’t afford it.
Personally, aside from being a great guy and a gifted speaker, I think Glen is a voice of reason that those outside the movement can listen to… without being alienated in the first paragraph. IMO his public opinions regarding SSM are reasoned and liberal but not radical… consistant with the bulk of the nation. I don’t agree with everything Glen has to say, but then again… he doesn’t demand that I do.
While every movement needs those with strongly held beliefs, those folks need to be kept in check as much as possible, their efforts directed towards productive enterprise as opposed to divisive internal bickering (which is the default result when you get a lot of folks together with strong but divergent beliefs). I’m sure these sort of articles are comforting to those who would like to see us go away.
December 13, 2007 at 8:35 am
John Howard said,
December 13, 2007 at 11:54 am