From California, With H8
In the wake of the passage of California’s Proposition 8, Gays and Lesbians are showing their true colors displaying great hate of heterosexuals and just about everything we do.
Saturday, November 15th marks a day of hateful community-organized demonstrations, and predictable violence as well. Already, we have seen an old lady with a Cross beaten, hateful slogans plastered all over Mormon Churches, police cars damaged, and queer advocates baiting people into physical altercations to make themselves look good.
Blacks know precisely why the queer marriage movement’s demands are fatally disingenuous. “It’s not a civil rights issue, because as African-Americans we can’t change the color of our skin,” said pastor Edward Smith, who supported the ban on gay marriage. That is why 70% of California blacks voted for proposition 8.
The language of queer marriage movement is as shifty as the Arabic sands. They claim homosexuality is purely genetic, but elsewhere preen young people to “choose” being a homosexual. They want to inculcate kindergartners by taking them on school field trips to witness lesbian marriages. They say they want “gay marriage”, but litigate strenuously for laws that let any two human beings marry regardless of sexual orientation.
The queer marriage movement is indeed a hate movement targeting everything heterosexual. We are known as “breeders”. Marilyn French, an advisor to Al Gore’s presidential campaign, believes that “All men are rapists and that’s all they are.” Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan insisted, “I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.” Gloria Steinem (who was sidelined by feminists for not being radical enough) believed that “The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women.”
Why do feminist leaders, who for forty years have erupted rivers of hate for marriage and husbands, now desperately want the entire socioeconomic institution of marriage for themselves? Why are they so hateful in their protesting to encourage the California Supreme Court to block Proposition 8?
In the January, 1988 issue of the N.O.W. Times, radical feminist oracle Sheila Cronan had a featured inset that speaks volumes: “The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.” At the 1988 N.O.W convention in Houston, Cronin declared; “Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage’.
Why would N.O.W. expect all women to pretend they are lesbians and fully devote themselves towards achieving a goal that only a few lesbians want? Why would N.O.W litigate vociferously for gay men while continuing to do everything possible to destroy the social rights of heterosexual men?
“Heather has two mommies” explains it all. It is a feminist vision for taking over the economic institution of marriage and the social institution of family (men cannot be parents outside marriage, unless they go to great lengths to adopt). Billions in federal social entitlement seed money is already available to feminists to buy out the marriage market, beginning with $16-billion in TANF block grants to states every year. This is why two-thirds of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts involve women – whose sexual preference is unknown.
N.O.W. cares nothing about gay men. It is using them as political fools to make SSM appear “gender neutral”. Gay men would receive little out of marriage. For them, marriage is largely an illusion masking a treatable and healable sexual disorder that is often disabling or fatal: gay men have 800% more sexual partners than heterosexual men. Like hetero men, gay men will be sucked dry for child support, but more stiffly be denied parental rights because they are gay.
It is astonishing that gay men imagine N.O.W. is really working for them. Heterosexual men thought the feminist equal rights movement (since the 1970’s) stood for equality, and strongly supported it, until they found out personally what it means via a bankrupting surprise divorce or impossible child support order.
Indeed, same sex marriage would result in severe societal stratification. It would place dual-female marriages-of-socioeconomic-convenience at the top of the socioeconopolitical diaspora, heterosexual marriages in the middle, and gay men at the very bottom.
In 1970, noted feminist author Shulamith Firestone issued a firebrand call predicting the demise of heterosexual marriage and the subsequent rise of the feminist same-sex marriage movement we see today:
“The nuclear family is the school of values in a sexist, sexually repressed society … The alternative to the nuclear family at the moment is the extended family or the tribe. The growth of tribe is part of the process of destroying particularized roles and fixed erotic identity. As people develop fluid androgynous identity, they will also develop the forms of community appropriate to it. We cannot really imagine what those forms will be.”
Now, I turn the tables on feminists, proving that what they want cannot be a Constitutional right:
“Heterosexual marriage is the only institution that fully and naturally erases all physical, economic, social, elective, legally-imposed, and culturally-imposed differences that exist between women and men. It is the only institution that harnesses the entire human race to work hard together and raise children in prosocial manner. It is the only institution that naturally assures everyone equal rights of every description regardless of race, sex, or creed. It is the whole cloth establishing one cooperative human race. Same-sex marriage cannot be constitutional because it would be the antithesis of equality structurally magnifying every tangible difference and disparity that exists between women and men, segregating marriages into at least three obviously dissimilar classes (female-female, heterosexual, and male-male), each with substantively different social, economic, and legal rights at law and public policy.”
This declaration of fact is easily proven by first pointing out that Roe v. Wade gives women exclusive control over reproduction and surrounding decisions. This precedent immediately translates into a strong or unilateral presumption assigning females custody of children, together with the social institution of family and the rights, privileges, protections, and social welfare benefits thereto; even in the elective absence of marriage. The list of downstream family law statistical citations proving how the sexes are treated vastly differently, on the basis of sex alone, is nearly endless and manifestly evident in all aspects of family law and social policy.
Where the sexes are unquestionably treated differently before law in all these matters, an elective marriage between two women and another elective marriage between two men would facially enjoy vastly dissimilar rights, benefits, and protections. Both would be unreasonably burdened with tremendously different responsibilities and sanctions before the law, regardless of sexual orientation of participants in elective gender-segregated marriages.
Where women have automatic control of children absent marriage, and would have chattel ownership of children borne into elective same-sex marriages, men’s ability to be parents and to participate in the very fabric of society would be fully abrogated; while men would be required to economically support feminist marriages via an arrangement not dissimilar to indentured servitude.
Same sex marriages are therefore not equivalent or similarly situated for the purpose of asserting an equal rights claim of action on which high courts could justify issuance of broad orders forcing states to perform or recognize “same sex marriage”. Rather, the above analysis suggests that courts must ban same sex marriage, on its face, to protect fundamental constitutional equal rights of men and women.
George Washington was married without a state marriage license, as was everyone else back then. The Constitution was written intending for Churches to have exclusive control of marriage – protected as a fundamental right. Marriage did not fall under the purvue of the state in any way. In the mid 1800’s some states began requiring marriage licenses for interracial marriages as a way to track miscegenation and discourage the practice. In 1923, the federal government enacted the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act. By 1929, all states required marriage licenses.
Courts have dramatically seized incremental powers over marriage for states and trial lawyers to gratuitously manipulate, initially by giving the state sole control over divorce. With the passage of time, the notion of the separation between church and state has far exceeded its original dubious intent, and it being abused as a predatory devise. Feminists are now demanding courts seize control of marriage itself, at the complete disenfranchisement of Church.
Feminists have nearly fooled America into handing the institution of marriage over to them lock, stock, and barrel. The impact of this would be additionally as devastating to America as the feminist-inspired divorce and entitled-illegitimacy revolutions were.
Few thought that the divorce revolution would have a major impact on society or government. We now know that the impact has devastated state and federal budgets, created two generations of impoverished women and children, and a nation of disaffected men living on the fringes of society who cannot be responsible for their families because they are arbitrarily denied the fundamental right to be husbands and fathers. Many are brought up with no social proscript other than “getting by”, playing video games, virtual relationships, and “shacking up”.
Politicians have the audacity to call them “deadbeat dads”, while mainstream television portrays them as idiots and jerks. I cannot imagine how it is possible for most boys to become mature, healthy adults in this contemporary diaspora. Images are powerful. Discrimination against boys in public education and the substituting of Ritalin for proper recreation and education is widespread. Boys brought up rarely seeing positive futures for themselves, while drugged with speed in school, will likely become intergenerational reflections of their massively abusive upbringing, with downward pressures on future generations.
We must recognize now that, if permitted, same sex marriage will become commonplace within two generations, causing serious compound socioeconomic problems. No large country has survived for long absent a strong institution of heterosexual marriage. Rome and the former U.S.S.R. are two primary examples that went morally, and subsequently economically bankrupt.
We cannot afford to roll over when barraged with terroristic admonitions uttered by hateful feminists. We will stand our ground. We will not sit on out thumbs or back down. Let us talk about it directly and factually. Let feminists isolate themselves as the radicals they truly are. Let us show them the door, as they walk their own gangplank right into the Pacific ocean.
————————————————-
David R. Usher is President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition
| More from David R. Usher
Stumble It!
November 15th, 2008 at 5:18 am
Feminism has gotten this far because of “Democracy†and “Big Governmentâ€.
The next time you hear someone talk bad about Ron Paul, or any of his supporters, you need to speak up. We may not agree with him on all of the issues, but he is leaps-and-bounds ahead of anyone else currently serving our government.
I didn’t think much of the guy at first, because he isn’t very “well spokenâ€, and he seems a little bit “nerdyâ€, but he’s unimpeachable when it comes to the true content of his character. We need to elect people who will cut off the federal dollars relied on by these feminist hate mongers.
Ron Paul is a far better man than the sum of *all his detractors*.
November 15th, 2008 at 11:40 am
CNN finally picked the international protest story up at 3:00 PM CT. Thats a bit slow considering it has been going on seven hours now.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html
Drudge, MSNBC, ABC, FOX, and CBS have not even mentioned it. For everyone, the top story is the Montecito wildfire.
One very interesting thing everyone must understand, which just sank into my mind: California did not ban “gay marriage”, it banned “same sex marriage”.
These are two entirely different issues, with two entirely different scopes of legal meaning. N.O.W. made a tremendous mistake litigating for SSM. It blew their case, and brought America down on feminists.
It appears that most of the protesters are college-aged kids. As we know, feminists run our Universities via women’s studies programs with enforcement of their agenda via inter-disciplinary studies programs and forceful censorship. These protests are a coagulation of entitled women’s studies people and their brain-censored robots, NAMBLA, and other national feminist gay/lesbian groups.
They are attempting to duplicate the 1960’s days of feminist protest which began at U.C. Berkeley, which brought on the feminist sexual liberation movement, leading to California enacting the first no-fault divorce laws. We are hip to the wiles of these people, and the enactment of Prop 8 indicates that even in ultra-liberal California, feminism can no longer get what it wants.
Speaking of forceful censorship: a story of contemporary interest. I went to Knox College in Galesburg, Il (http://www.knox.edu) between 1970 and 1974 with John Podesta, who is now chief of Obama’s transition team and darling of the media. I recall him organizing a raucus campus community-organization event to throw the house mothers out of the girls dormitories, end “open door” policies, end sign-in policies, and make the dorms open and unsecured 7×24. Most of the girls in the dorms that I knew were terrified about having men wandering around the place all the time. The protest was executed, and Knox caved in without a peep. Podesta now heads up the Knox College Board of Trustees.
In late 2001 and early 2002, I was working with some kids at Knox to start a men’s studies program. We all objected to Knox’s heavy involvement in feminist/gay/lesbian activities with censorship of anyone who had other views. I had a lot of quiet support from Knox professors and adminstrative people, who refused to get directly involved because they knew they would get fired. Campus feminists were tremendously incensed and rude. I was censored by Roger Taylor, the President of Knox College. I have a letter on Knox letterhead, bearing Taylor’s signature, announcing that my emails to Knox would be forever censored on the Knox mail server. A number of the kids I was working with, including football and other high-visibility students transferred elsewhere for lack of any other recourse. It has now been six years since realistic views on these issues could be seen by Knox Students. I will be happy to email a PDF copy of the letter to anyone who wants it.
The issue does not revolve around gays and lesbians — it is whether or not America will hand the entire institution of marriage over to radical feminists.
November 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Meanwhile, those protesting the bans chanted, “Gay, straight, black, white; marriage is a civil right.”
No it isn’t. Not any more. It’s now a government program packaged with entitlements. Statutory definitions of marriage came tumbling down on account of equal access to government programs and entitlements. In the process, civil rights have been eliminated.
California did not ban “gay marriageâ€, it banned “same sex marriageâ€.
I’m close to heading for the airport for a week in the US, David, so I didn’t read your whole long post. But I believe I get this. “Gay marriage” (so to speak – wish people would stop using the PC slang and say what it is) is what everybody has now. The cause of the transition still hasn’t been dealt with. Prop. 8 covered a symptom, not the disease. Passage just means that same-sex couples can’t do it. But everyone else is still stuck with it. Traditional marriage has definitely not been returned to its former status as a protected private institution, free from arbitrary government intrusion.
November 15th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
MSNBC just picked up the story.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27738714/
Fox, ABC, CBS are still wisely ignoring them. Drudge has a low-level link to a Yahoo story.
Like everyone else, MSNBC does not understand the difference between banning same-sex marriage and banning gay marriage. The words are used interchangeably, as if rubbing alcohol and vodka were somehow the same thing.
Feminists can no longer address issues directly — their agenda is far too radical for America. they have to masquerade as gays, lesbians, and blacks. Californians did not buy it.
These protests will kick back on feminists badly. Feminists are now calling Catholics “Fascists”. They have outed their agenda and methods. The more name-calling they do, the more they will alienate everyone. Most Americans see right through it.
November 15th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Masterful, David. You are really getting into ‘The Zone’.
November 15th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
[...] R. Usher From California, With H8 2008-11-14 at 10:18 pm · Filed under 2008, Economics, Family, Fatherhood, Feminism, Judicial [...]
November 15th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
SSM protesters really crossed the line.
They are comparing heterosexuals with Nazis, bigots, racists, sexists, bullies, polygamists, and Jim Crow. They equate Church with Hate. They are stealing lines from Ghandi and Martin Luther King. Some feminist women’s lib slogans are there. It was rather like watching a collection of spoiled children having a mass temper tantrum.
Their true colors are indeed showing. I do not expect this inflammatory, polemic, and gratuitous protest to accomplish much but to alienate a lot of people who might have originally been sympathetic. Most young folks refuse to get involved in this stuff. But they aren’t going to go along with those raising bedlam, because they are looking for lives that are more normal than that of their parents.
Feminists apparently think that pulling redecorated 1960’s Berkeley hippie protests will impress people. The men’s movement found in 2001 that this does not work, with the Bridges for Children protests that were held in 225 cities around the world, organized by myself, Dianna Thompson, and Stu Miller.
This is a new age. Most younger folks are aware of the excesses of the Hippie and feminist movements. They watched their parents botch it. Folks over the age of 55 lived it and personally know the costs. This is undoubtedly triggering alarm bells in their minds.
See: http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Protest+Signs
However, I do predict that the Ca SupCt will grant the Prop 8 stay request this coming week. Then the real battle to stop feminism in its tracks will take place. If this comes to pass, I will be involved in at least one Amicus filed with the court. I am confident that my equal rights argument above, when fully cited in light of previous cases and the arguments in this case, will easily prevail.
November 16th, 2008 at 1:21 am
The very best of fortune, but the wise course will be to have a Plan B. The Courts are corrupt and Truth that is allowed past the Lawyers does not get past the ear-wax of the Judges.
The great silent majority that we all hope exists has been taken down a very slippery path of mendacity and false arguement. They believe far too much of the crap that feminism has poured out over the past forty years. Cognitive dissonance alone will stop most people from repudiating what they have all been mindlessly mouthing for two generations.
How about putting up a Proposition 9 to have Life-long Marriage allowed only between non-Democrats. Everyone else gets a three year licence, renewable only on payment of $10k (inflation linked, of course). Watch the hew and cry !
November 16th, 2008 at 3:03 am
[...] [...]
November 21st, 2008 at 7:41 am
David wrote: “California did not ban “gay marriageâ€, it banned “same sex marriageâ€.”
While this issue is presented as one of “banning gays from marriage,” in truth the issue is about legally defining marriage in a whole new way.
That new definition will be a hybrid, gender-neutral construction in which “husband and wife” is replaced with “Partner A and Partner B.” It most likely will also result in replacing “mother and father” with “Parent A and Parent B.” The latter is necessary so two same-sex partners can have children “together.” This new definition of parenthood would divorce the rights and responsibilities of parenthood from biology. In effect, everyone would be “legal parents” but not necessarily “natural parents.”
Feminism is Marxism in drag. Gay marriage is feminism in lavender.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:04 pm
El Cid,
Correct. Gays and lesbians went to the court supposedly asking for gay marriage for themselves, but requested an order for SSM, which is not narrowly tailored to address their claim, and provides the benefit to everyone irregardless of sex. Strict scrutiny orders MUST be narrowly tailored to address the equal rights issue, and cannot provide the benefit to anyone not before the court. These justices are not stupid: they know doggone well their order is fatally erroneous. The CaSupCt ordered it because they can knowing there is no higher place to appeal an erroneous order to.
Their logic is fatally flawed, and collapses like dominoes. If the court were to order the state to marry lesbians and gays (which would be narrowly tailored), how would two lesbians prove they are lesbians when walking into a marriage office short of “doing it” in front of the clerk? Sexual orientation is NOT immutable as is race or ones actual physical sex, and is therefore not a suspect class. That is the second fatal mistake that the CaSupCt’s prior ruling is based on.
Some courts are about the exercise of arbitrary power. In this regard, the CaSupCt is a modern recreation of “High Commission” (more commonly referred to as the Star Chamber).
My grandfather, Roland G. Usher (head of the history department at Washington University for many years) wrote a book on this, titled “The Rise and Fall of the High Commission”(Oxford: Clarendon Press 1913), It is considered a standard work on the subject. You can read it for free online here: http://www.archive.org/details/theriseandfallof00usheuoft
Like King Henry, the CaSupCt has agenda of its own, secular feminists manipulating the bench (most likely because feminists have a lot of sexual dirt on members of the court to use as judicial motivators), rather than monarchical desires pulling the levers of law from behind a curtain of usurped religious authority.
The King in this instance is apparently Schwartzenegger and Gavin Newsom, who must have a number of back-room connections with the justices themselves. It seems unlikely that Newsom would have taken the extraordinarily risky and radical step ordering SSM’s in San Francisco, without advance arrangements being made aforehand assuring that the CaSupCt would back him up. A ruling against Newsom would have been the end of his political career — a risk career politicians simply do not take blindly.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:59 am
[...] Father’s advocate and MND columnist David R. Usher will be a guest on the Lars Larson show tonight (Weds) at 6:20 Central time (7:20 Eastern, 5:20 Mountain, 4:20 Pacific time). He will discuss his latest article, “From California, with H8“. [...]