California, the formerly bell-weather state, just became a state for which the bell tolls by making “same-sex” marriage legal.

A brief reading of the very long decision by the California Supreme Court left me believing that aliens already inhabit planet earth and even run a state from a star chamber dominated by Republicans (who should know better).

The lengthy ruling made no mention of the most important issue before them: what is the actual purpose of heterosexual marriage in terms of human rights, and what might the impact be of fully detaching the purpose of marriage from sex itself?

Heterosexual marriage is the only constitutional legal framework that naturally creates equal social, economic, parental, and civil rights between men and women. It is intuitively obvious to all that men and women are distinctly different in many ways. Heterosexual marriage is the only institution creating “one” human race and preventing it from becoming two races pitted against each other.

Women can bear children, men cannot. Women are the presumed custodians of children in marriage and divorce. Men are the presumed recipients of large child support orders, and often the majority of marital debts in divorce.

The vast difference between our treatment of men and women is overwhelmingly proven simply by mentioning everyday terminology describing the results of the divorce and illegitimacy revolution: We immediately think of single mothers as needing “welfare entitlements”, and single fathers as being “deadbeats who ran out on the family or deserved the divorce forced on them”. This proves beyond all doubt that vast inequalities exist in the absence of heterosexual marriage.

“Same-sex” marriage a legal fiction created by feminists to circumvent the brutal inequalities and corollary damage they caused in their successful execution of the war on heterosexual marriage ( feminists prefer calling this women’s liberation). Their idea is to go one step further: to turn marriage into an exercise in double-matriarchy.

N.O.W.’s plan has always been to kick men out of marriage and then replace them with women. They want this last victory because it gives women a total monopoly over reproduction, the social and legal institutions of “family”, the incomes of men, and absolute sexual liberation. It is no coincidence that the first to announce an intent to take advantage of “husbandless marriage” was Ellen Degeneres (whose entirely-female audience responded with war-whoops and insane cheering).

In California, any two women will soon be able to “marry” each other (sexual orientation being completely irrelevant), have as many “love children” they want by bedding down boy-toys, and get paid tremendous sums of money for doing so. Such a marriage will feature an average of four to six incomes: the incomes of the two women, at least two sets of child support orders, and two sets of welfare entitlements.

With profit options and sexual freedoms like this, who would want to marry a man in California, except for perhaps another man? Those who imagine this will not happen in large numbers should recall that nobody thought the divorce revolution would result in a 50% divorce rate and the massive marriage-absence problem that has left the federal deficit wildly out of control.

California has now gone into the business of state-sponsored serial polymory. The parallels to the FLDS case in Texas are astonishing – only the sexes are reversed. However, instead of have a few religious nuts running a small sect, we have an entire state becoming one under color of Constitutional law.

California has 108,000 same-sex couples. In Massachusetts, the wide majority of those “marrying” are women (an outcome that is entirely predictable under this socioeconomic analysis). If Massachusetts same-sex math holds true, California would come out of the gate with 81,000 families owned by dominatrix feminists, and at least 81,000 disenfranchised men who are third-class citizens. Just like the divorce revolution, which started out small, this figure will explode as N.O.W. executes its heretofore hidden agenda — convincing the vastly larger body of heterosexual women that they should do this too — gaining tremendous advantages over heterosexual marriage without being lesbians.

Readers must completely understand that ending the ban on interracial marriage is not a valid comparison (as proponents frequently claim) in calling for an end to the ban on same-sex marriage. There were great disparities between the races which were reduced by allowing blacks (or other races) to marry whites. Same-sex marriage reduces no disparities – because women are not different from women, and men are not different from other men. Same-sex marriage unquestionably increases well-known disparities that exist between men and women.

The U.S. Constitution (which states must observe) bars discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or creed. One’s sexual idiosyncrasies are not nearly a match, even where in some cases genes may have some effect.

Feminists have realized that pushing “gay” or “same sex” marriage raises more questions than it answers – so they have changed their lead buzz-phrase to “equal marriage”, thus avoiding discussions of sexual behavior completely. This will not disguise the realities any more than the buzz phrase for the failed “Equal Rights Amendment” (E.R.A.) did.

Beyond the obvious destruction of heterosexual marriage guaranteed by the California ruling, there is one other tremendously detrimental effect: every sexual perversion ever advertised in the Berkeley Barb has just been turned into a case for marital celebration and litigation spanning every walk of civil life. The ruling will not contain sexual perversions within marriage, rather, it will encourage much more of it in our public schools, on the streets, on television, in our prisons, and in lawsuits targeting every walk of life.

Not only will these perversions become more public: we will have to walk on eggshells around them forever. Take the New York case of a lesbian who, dressed up as a man, was not permitted to use the ladies room at the Caliente Cab Restaurant despite being willing to show ID proving that she is “physically” a woman. The bouncer was not about to let anyone who looks like a man (or pretends to be one) wander into the women’s room and scare the dickens out of heterosexual women.

Any dyke lesbian who gets off “being” a man (and also looks like one) probably also wants to prowl the restroom for a hookup, which means frightening they daylights out of heterosexual women in the restroom (who would also have cause for a very successful lawsuit against the restaurant if it permitted “men” looking for sexual adventure to prowl the ladies room).

Astonishingly, and in spite of the dark truths and multiple irreconcilable paradoxes of the New York case, the dyke sued and won!

If I owned a business in New York, I would move to any state (except California) immediately. When reductio ad absurdum always leaves another lawsuit (which also happens to disprove the first lawsuit if it were filed), the only people who have civil rights are trial lawyers. No matter what business owners do, they are in a situation of double-jeopardy and will have their pants sued off by trial lawyers. (Those who insanely love New York can always install 18 bathrooms in their restaurant — one for every possible perversion — and hire a team of potty police to check ID’s and make happy customers drop everything below the beltline to prove their genital structure.)

Like the Massachusetts decision in Goodridge, the California ruling does not relate to the claim on which the decision is based. In both cases, lesbians and gays litigated for their “right to marry”. As in Massachusetts, the court did not question whether or not their request for relief was narrowly tailored to precisely relieve the discrimination they claim (which is a mandatory test in constitutional “strict scrutiny” decisions). In both cases, the courts blithely went far beyond the stated claim of discrimination in requiring both states to marry any two women or any two men, regardless of sexual orientation. This alone renders the decision a fraudulent simulation of constitutional process.

Mark my words: California is headed into a much larger and darker form of gender-class warfare than ever attempted before in America. And, California does not have the fiscal surpluses to cover the vast array of known social problems that will expand because men will be essentially turned into plantation slaves.

The California crime waves of the 1970’s caused by teen boys of the early 60’s divorce revolution (which Police Chief Daryl Gates could not explain), may seem minor in comparison to what will happen when the welfare state marries itself and men are treated worse than ever before.

California is beset by tremendous social problems because two generations of young men and women were largely brought up in father-absent families. Gangs are a major problem, the drugs they sell are destroying youth all across America, school shootings have become a “non-event”, and illegitimacy rates are skyrocketing. Both boys and girls are violent. And Hollywood sells us their insanity on cable television as “entertainment”.

A few days ago, Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger announced his intent to partially reduce California’s staggering $15.2-billion annual deficit by selling bonds against future lottery revenues. Schwarzenegger’s astonishing suggestion is a not-so-subtle clue that California is already a dead state: Lottery revenues are not a bondable physical thing.

And that is not even mentioning the fact that states are not permitted to run deficits: only the Federal Government is permitted to do so – and for good reason.

California has outdone Al Capone: California has become self-will-run mob far larger than Capone’s ever was, and is doing so under the pretense of being a “state”. Its eventual failure will be far more devastating to the nation’s economy than the failures of Enron, the internet crisis, and the housing loan crisis. Need I point out that California was the primary or major cause of all these crisises to begin with?

I will now “out” the primary (unmentionable) driver behind the bizarre decisions of the Massachusetts and California Supreme Courts. Gay and lesbian litigation is a major income source for trial lawyers. Legalizing same-sex marriage opens up doors for explosive litigation in every state, which subsequently opens the floodgates for an endless stream of hydra-headed litigation in literally every area of law.

The A.B.A. and state Bar associations, like any other trade associations, instinctively pursue anything that makes more money even if it is wrong. The A.B.A. is particularly and irresponsibly aggressive because it is the only trade association in America which has sole authority to discipline its own profession (and to not sue itself when someone does something wrong). The Constitution and meaningful jurisprudence is thusly damned by the very profession supposed to protect it.

This explains why the California decision meticulously avoids titration of the obvious equal-rights guarantees provided only by natural heterosexual marriage, and in its place substitutes a foundationless rationalization bought by utter corruption in the back-halls of the legal establishment.

One of these days, California will suffer an earthquake worse than the recent event that leveled an area of China far larger than the state of California. While the bell would certainly toll loudly if that were to happen, somehow I have a feeling we won’t have to wait that long. The bell is already tolling for the majority of normal people unfortunate enough to reside in the collapsing state of California.

————————————————-

David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

Rate this post:

(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)

 Loading ...