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 Valuesâ€Â. 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 Silenceâ€Â. {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 bashingâ€Â. 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 Rightâ€Â. 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 Issueâ€Â, N.O.W uses the words “gayâ€Â, “lesbianâ€Â, 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.â€Â
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 genderâ€Â. 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 marriedâ€â€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
