What if I told you that David Usher thinks same-sex marriage will help pave the way for feminist marriages in our country? Sounds like a good deal, right? Once people see that two people of the same gender can live together and raise children, they'll start to question their essentialist beliefs and begin to form more equal partnerships based on love and mutual respect. David Usher, what a man!
It turns out that Mr. Usher, president of the Center for Marriage Policy, and I were not on the same page. He's the mastermind behind a highly creative, if we're going to be generous, conspiracy theory that reveals women for what we really are: sneaky bitches who are all essentially straight, but want to redefine marriage so that we can sleep around, trick men into having babies with us, and steal money from the government.
Not this David Usher
According to Usher, same-sex marriage will establish a three-tier hierarchy of marriage. Feminist woman-woman marriage comes out on top, heterosexual marriages follow, and man-man marriages are relegated to the "marital underclass." What's "feminist marriage," you ask? Well:
Feminist marriage is a three-way contract between two women and government. Most women will have children, and few women can afford or will go to the extreme of using artificial insemination to achieve pregnancy. Government is the automatic third party collecting “child support” entitlements for children born in these marriages.
Children will be born of extramarital affairs backed by welfare guarantees and child support entitlements. Feminist marriages are automatically entitled with many tax-free, governmental income sources for having children.
His logic is misanthropic at best and, confusingly, doesn't acknowledge the existence of actual gay people. He hypothesizes that "gay marriage" isn't something that anyone wants.
"These are victim-based marketing ploys invented by NOW to send us off into a heated debate about homosexuality and equal rights – distracting us from seeing their real goal of establishing “feminist marriage." Feminists made feminist marriage their top long-term goal twenty-five years ago and invested tremendous resources in it, because they intend to convert marriage into a feminist-controlled government enterprise and subordinate the rest of America to fund it. Feminist marriage is structurally designed to destroy equality."
Because this is complete baloney and I don't know if I can't handle actually dissecting the rest of the argument, (except maybe to briefly mention the fact that the entire idea seems to be based on some totally different and new definition of "welfare" that is not based in any way on how the welfare system actually works) I now bring you David Usher's "Why Same-Sex Marriage is Unconstitutional" in the style of Weekend Update's "Really?"
Really, David Usher? You really think that NOW and other feminists are out to destroy equality in America, and that of all things, marriage is their most important priority? Do ending sex discrimination, upholding reproductive rights, ensuring economic justice, ending racism, and stoping violence against women sound like goals that are going to lead to more stratification to you? How exactly does giving women the right to vote, own property, hold jobs, and have ownership over her own body make our society less equal?
I mean really? With this model, women "can...have as many boyfriends as they want and capture the richest ones for baby-daddies by 'forgetting' to use their invisible forms of birth control?" How many gay women in same-sex marriages do you know who want a lot of boyfriends? Really, I'm sure you have A LOT of gay and female friends to back you up on just how not-homophobic and not-misogynistic you are, or else you wouldn't write something so clearly uninformed.
Really!? You say that women want to be able to do whatever we want and make the government pay for our mistakes? Who do you think we are, Usher? Wall Street?
Also not this Usher
And you really think that economic benefits will make women more attracted to "feminist marriages" than heterosexual ones? Really? Despite the economic inequities that women face, making their households significantly less wealthy, and which are not actually outweighed by the imaginary free government money that you're describing? If you really think women are this shallow and conniving, why are you pushing for straight marriage? Why would any man want to get married to a woman? Oh right, because otherwise men are destined to become second class citizens.
Because really? You think that "Feminist marriage directly violates 14th Amendment protection against sex discrimination"? (And also somehow harms women's employment opportunities?) Have you read the 14th Amendment? Section 2 gives all males--and only males--the right to vote. Really! The 19th Amendment extended that right to women, but there is still no Equal Rights Amendment. Constitutionally, sex discrimination really is allowed. Really. Not that it would matter, since what you call "feminist marriage" wouldn't have anything to do with sex discrimination, and would actually just mean that people who love each other can marry and go on to create stable families that will strengthen our communities and country. But that's not really what you're interested in, is it?
The problem is that people (really) do think that same-sex marriage leads to disaster. As ridiculous as Usher's theory sounds, he's far from the only person who holds such apocalyptic beliefs, even if not everyone uses such bizarre logic to justify them. He says that people supporting the repeal of DOMA are making a "tragic mistake;" it's up to us, then, to make sure that we see DOMA repealed in Usher's lifetime so he can see how wrong he was.