Saturday, November 15^th 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

Share on digg

Apple just announced dedicated support for same-sex marriage, and a donation of $100,000 to kill Proposition 8 in California:

“No on Prop 8

October 24, 2008

Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.” [i]

Gay marriage (actually “same-sex” marriage as the courts in three states have ordered) is not about equality. Civil rights do not rise from human behavior, especially behaviors known to kill people in large numbers and impose tremendous medical costs on society.

I don’t care what people do in their bedrooms. That is their business and their problem. But when they claim this somehow imbues a right to marry, we all become very interested.

Now, absorb the following legal tenet I realized in 2002 a few times until the full scope of the meaning sinks in.

Heterosexual marriage is the only legal institution that absolutely erases all physical, reproductive, economic, social, and culturally-imposed differences that exist between men and women. Same-sex marriage magnifies all disparities to maximal proportion, and essentially leaves men with substantively diminished or non-existent social, parental economic, voting, and legal rights in a society founded on predatory feminist socioeconomic chivalry.

The National Organization for Women has litigated heavily for same-sex marriage since the mid-80s. They desperately want it because they know damned well that when any two women can marry each other, feminist supremacy over family, children, and men’s incomes is assured; women having all the rights and no responsibilities to men, with women liberated absolutely from men.

Same-sex marriage (SSM) is an unconstitutional, dangerous hyper-Marxist extension of Roe v. Wade. Roe granted women absolute rights to their bodies, extending to the point of killing live babies. SSM extends this absolute right to fully subrogate the institution of heterosexual marriage to the heavy hand of predatory feminist choices.

Feminists intend to empower women to take over the institution of marriage, have as many lover children and sexual enounters as they want with whatever hot studs suits their fancy, collect child support and various welfare entitlements every step of the way.

When women learn they can marry their college roommate, keep their two incomes entirely, and get as many hefty child support orders, and welfare and S-Chip health care entitlements besides, there is no question this will happen in large numbers. Why would any woman marry a man, and have only two income sources and taxes, when she could marry another woman and have at least six sources of income, at least four of them being tax-free?

An average middle-class child support order is not a small sum. It amounts to an working income of at least $6.25 per hour salary for doing nothing but being a “custodial parent”. For four children this amounts to a tax-free working income of $24 per hour minimum.

Guess who pays this? Men who have no choice, except perhaps to marry other men for lack of marriage prospects; men who have no rights imbued under heterosexual marrage, but are mandated to assume most of the economic responsibilities.

This is why I call same-sex marriage the “penultimate system of predatory feminist chivalry”.

If San Francisco is shallow enough to decriminalize prostitution, prostitutes will simply marry each other and set out destroying men in every direction. Many women will take up prostitution for the additional benefits imbued: Very high incomes for short working hours. Married prostitute couples could easily make a minimum of $250,000 per year, plus at least $25,000 per year in child support, and retire into glam spinsterhood by age 35. With prospects like this, who needs to work, attend college, or make something of oneself?

Of course, married men will lose careers, jobs, and be ousted from politics when discovered fooling around with married prostitutes (whose marital fidelity will never be questioned). Where prostitution is considered a woman’s right, and a man’s wrong, there is no question who will dominate politics and policy in San Francisco.

Women cannot afford failure of Proposition 8. Any society comprised of large numbers of detached men, with no stake or rights in society, is guaranteed to be dangerous, nonproductive, and deficit-prone. Ask anybody trying to survive life in Oakland.

Now imagine expanding this to encompass the entire state of California.

Heterosexual marriage must be protected by Proposition 8. Advancement of the human race depends decisively on cooperation and equal legal, social, and parental rights for men and women. Heterosexual marriage is the only institution insuring this equality and a stable society for raising children into adulthood.

Vote “Yes” on Proposition 8!. In addition, drag out your old Smith Corona typewriter or hook up string between two bean cans before considering buying an Apple product.

————————————————-

David R. Usher is President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

Share on digg

On another list I follow, the majority of those contributing were wringing their hands over the thought that an initiative to amend the State Constitution has qualified for the ballot, and the fear that their fellow Californians won’t “do the right thing” and vote it down.  However, they are buoyed by the hope that the flood of same-sex marriages over the next five months will make it infeasible to undo, no matter what the voters decide.

I’ve held back in that forum — there are plenty of other things that are more fun to fight about.  But one comment, where someone referred to marriage as a “magic word”, got me to thinking, and to asking a question no one else seems to ask very often:

Why should a society have an institution like marriage in the first place?

When I proposed that question, the first answer I got was another question:  “Do you have any idea how hard it is to raise a child when you’re a single parent?”

Aha!  It’s about children.  If you’re entering into a marriage, it’s for the sake of any children that may issue.

The next sound I heard was a bit of back-pedaling, and a statement that childcare was part of the reason for marriage.  After all, if we consider it purely as an institution focused on children, it becomes a lot harder to justify same-sex marriages.

What about other reasons?

Well, another person mentioned inheritance.  Marriage provides clear rules of inheritance.  But then so does having kids, and so does having a will.   If you want someone to inherit your property when you die, you can arrange it without combining two lives into one.

Love and commitment are frequently mentioned criteria.  But you can love whomever you wish.  You can love more than one whomever.  You can move in to a building together and form a commune.  You can make public statements of commitment, and invite friends to witness, and have a party, and make a big to-do over it.  Why do you need a to tell a bureaucrat at the hall of records you love this or that person?  He’s not going to send you any wedding presents.

Child care?  Sharing of household duties?  Sharing of resources?  Our culture has all kinds of legal mechanisms for this sort of thing without requiring that people join their lives together.  Day care center and school staff don’t have to marry the parents of their charges — it’s enough to have a binding contract for services.  If you want to build a support structure around the parents of a child, where resources can be shared, the family could form a corporation.  That takes care of community property, and inheritance.

Marriage is more than just love and a ceremony of commitment.  It’s more than a way of sharing resources and labor.  It’s even more than building a structure to raise the next generation.  There is a magic inherent in marriage that people seem determined to ignore.  There are religious roots.

A big clue lies in a special privilege extended to married couples — neither member of a married couple can be compelled to testify against the other in a court of law.

This is an amazing privilege.  It’s very rare in our society.  I can think of three other areas where such a privilege exists: doctor-patient, lawyer-client, and priest-penitent.  And even these only apply during communications that take place while the doctor, lawyer, or priest are engaged in their profession with their clients.  Lawyer-client privilege doesn’t cover remarks I make in a casual conversation with a friend who happens to practice law.  But a spouse is never off duty in this regard.  Everything that passes between a husband and wife is privileged, and none of it can be compelled in a court of law.

Why create a special relationship in the law, and endow it with this kind of power?

In the Bible, and in other religions, marriage combines two lives into one.  In many senses, man and wife become “one flesh”.   If we take this seriously, we realize that compelling a man to testify against his wife is the same as compelling the wife to testify against herself.  Marriage is a religious and spiritual union of two individuals, far beyond anything mere law can achieve.

A society either believes this and acts accordingly, or it doesn’t.

With the latest ruling from the California Supreme Court, as well as the Massachusetts Supreme Court and several European nations, we’re seeing cultures abandoning this belief.  Marriage is becoming one way of arranging one’s personal affairs, not much different from forming a corporation or legal partnership. The magic is going away.

And in the regions where the magic has been pulled out of marriage, people are increasingly not bothering with marriage at all.  They either have children out of wedlock, or they decline to have them at all.

I suspect one of three things is going to happen in California, and in the rest of the United States.

1)  The people will overturn same-sex marriage laws.  Over the objections of the LGLBT community (the first “L” is “Liberal”), marriage will remain defined as one man and one woman.  (If the people stand up to the Islamic community, it will remain defined as only one man and only one woman.  We’ll see.)  Status will remain quo.

2)   The State will continue to recognize same-sex marriages, and will require anyone who offers a benefit to married couples to offer the same benefit to same-sex couples.  (If the Islamic community is noisy enough, the law will be extended to cover polygamous marriages — probably through the back door by bullying large corporations into compliance.)  After a First Amendment fight where churches may or may not retain the right to grant religious marriages only to those who meet their religious criteria, they will quit having anything to do with civil marriages at all.  If you want to be married in your faith, your priest (or priestess if you’re a Wiccan) will marry you.  If you want a civil marriage, go to a justice of the peace and get your civil paperwork.  But don’t try to pretend they’re the same thing.

3)  The same as #2, except the churches are forced to go along.  All forms of marriage lose their magic.

It’s interesting.  Where marriage loses its magic, people tend to forego it.  Without that magic, marriage really is “just a piece of paper”. And where marriage disappears, so does reproduction.  Mark Steyn has written a book about the impact of lower reproduction rates, and those areas where marriage has gone out of fashion are declining.

Like it or not, a strong religious foundation for marriage, indeed for life as a whole, pulls people out of the present and turns their mind toward the future.  And it’s this view to the future that gives us goals, and a reason to bring children into the world.

If you’re living for tomorrow, children are the future.  If you’re living for today, children are a nuisance.

I don’t expect scenario #3 to take place in the US.  Perhaps we’ll see both #1 and #2 in different states.  If we do, we’ll see the states that preserve marriage outbreed the states that don’t.  And the churches and other groups that preserve marriage and honor its magic in their own ways will prosper over those that don’t.

The future will be filled with people who consider children the future, and the people who consider them a nuisance will go extinct.

Hopefully, they won’t find a way to take the rest of us out with them.

Share on digg

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

Share on digg