David Usher Scared That Gay Marriage Spells Doom for Male Hegemony

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.

Before you go! Autostraddle runs on the reader support of our AF+ Members. If this article meant something to you today — if it informed you or made you smile or feel seen, will you consider joining AF and supporting the people who make this queer media site possible?

Join AF+!


Laura is a tiny girl who wishes she were a superhero. She likes talking to her grandma on the phone and making things with her hands. Strengths include an impressive knowledge of Harry Potter, the ability to apply sociology to everything under the sun, and a knack for haggling for groceries in Spanish. Weaknesses: Chick-fil-a, her triceps, girls in glasses, and the subjunctive mood. Follow the vagabond adventures of Laura and her bike on twitter [@laurrrrita].

Laura has written 308 articles for us.


  1. Isn’t it amazing? He probably deserves some sort of award for this.

    I’d prefer the “shut the hell up and go rot in your own idiocy” medal, but I’d settle for the “oh, fuck off” commemorative plaque.

  2. This logic is mind boggling.

    If someone wanted to go, get pregnant, have a kid, and mine the father for child support….can’t they already do that?

    Seriously? What does marriage equality have to do with it?

    I seriously doubt if these people believe what they are spouting. It’s just so dumb that it boggles the mind to imagine them as being serious.

    • Exactly. What do lesbians have to do with his argument? I don’t see the correlation.

      Maybe I don’t understand because I don’t consider myself a feminist even though I am in a lesbian marriage.

  3. “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?”


    a corporation can a) be legally considered an individual and b) get the government to pay for its fuck-ups, but they’re trying to eliminate government funding for women to get contraception?

    also i can’t even handle his argument. it’s not an argument, it’s a bafflement.

  4. Did anyone else read this and think he was actually acknowledging that women are oppressed?

    He assumes that straight marriages are not ideal for women.

    He acknowledges that women are not given the resources to maintain a family in a dual pairing assuming that if one woman in that paring was instead male, he would make enough money to support the family.

    Maybe I read too much into this but does anyone else agree?

  5. Someone should tell him that he is allowed to insist on a condom even if his lover is taking birth control.

  6. Did anyone else read the title and think why does anyone care what the lead singer of a 90’s band has to say about gay marriage? no one? Canadians? Old people? No? Just me? Okay

      • That is the only thing that made me happy in this entire article and why autostraddle makes me so happy. You can read something as horrible as this and still smile (at least a little)

    • OMG THANK YOU SO MUCH! For five years now it’s been bugging me that I couldn’t remember who did this song that I liked in college, and it was totally David Usher.

  7. Are we sure this isn’t a bunch of really cycnical but hilarious kids sitting around laughing at the people buying this stuff? Invisible birth control? Really?!

    I think this man might be the definition of misogynist.

  8. True story: a couple of weeks ago these two guys were sitting at the bar in the restaurant i work at and one of them asked me, totally out of nowhere, for my thoughts on this scenario. They basically said that for all the men out there who are rich and want kids, but don’t really want the monogamy or commitment of marriage, that it would be a great idea for lesbian couples to use these guys as sperm donors and sugar daddies so that the man in question can have all these different offspring with all these different lesbian couples and sort of be in the kids’ lives and financially support all the moms. i was totally baffled and was like “ummmmm….well i know for a fact that my girlfriend and i wouldn’t do something like that” and the guy was like, no way! you’re a lesbian! great!

    not that i expected them to guess my sexuality, but i thought it was even stranger that they were asking some random girl who they thought was straight to weigh in on such a bizarre question.

    my feelings about all of this, and the article by crazyface david usher:


    i don’t know a single lesbian who spends all her time thinking about men, how to get money from them, how to scam the system, how to exploit a sperm donor, how to have sex with them just to get pregnant, how to be in some odd three way relationship with her girlfriend and some male financial backer, etc. lesbians are women who love women. men have absolutely NOTHING to do with it, or us. jesus christ on a cracker why has the world gone so batshit crazy.

    • …”men have absolutely nothing to do with it.”

      Which is exactly why idiots like this are shaking in their boots. Men like this can’t conceive of a space, world, relationship etc that does not involve them, their opinions, or their sperm. They do a disservice to their sensitive and open minded brothers who get it and understand. Not to mention the bowl of shit they’re trying to serve women whilst insisting it is in fact ice cream.

    • I think you bring up a good point. Everyone has a different idea of what makes a family. In my mind I liken it to the difference between an open and closed adoption, where the birth parents either have visitation rights, or give up those rights when the baby is born. Many lesbians have no interest in the “open” version because it challenges the idea that they can make a family without a man, something they’ve spent a long time proving false. That doesn’t make the desire to have an open relationship with the donor shameful, just a different way of looking at a family.

  9. David Usher is upsetting, but I have to believe that the vast majority of the American population thinks his comments are just as ridiculous as we do.

    Also, I was SO HAPPY to see the Usher “Nice & Slow” video in this post. It totally made my night… and took me back to middle school (in a good way).

    • I agree, these comments are so far-out that they are ridiculous. But every time already-bigoted people are exposed to nut-case opinions (I’m thinking Rush-Limbaugh style here) it only serves to reinforce prejudice and stigma.

      Furthermore, the fictitious association between lesbians and feminists only serves to confuse the issue…although many of us are both, there are plenty of straight feminists too. But calling them lesbians, as many opponents do, makes them easier to attack as “bra-burning radicals.”

      What a world…

  10. “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.”

    OMG I see it now the GOVERNMENT is going to impregnate all these feminist ladies! !! Then steal the men’s monies to pay for it!!!

    Ahahaha and I also love the fear and paranoia contained in “capture the richest ones for baby-daddies ‘forgetting’ to use their invisible forms of birth control.” How can something INVISIBLE present BLOODSUCKING FEMINIST LEECH BABIES from taking over the world, I ask you???

  11. I started to write a logical response to this article, but then I googled this David Usher guy and my mind just melted. He has a whole page of articles about how feminists are trying to make all women lesbians, feminists caused the war on terror, and how Asia’s economy is stronger than ours because it’s based on their “marriage culture”.

    I’m honestly mildly terrified that this guy, who is also apparently a marriage counselor, is so uninformed about basically everything on this planet. At least I’m comforted by the fact that this is even more crazy than most of the right-wing crazies can handle.

  12. Okay, color me way confused. I honestly don’t understand this whole mess. Why is this an issue again? IMHO this situation can be simply addressed. The issue is the legalazation of gay and or same sex marriage. Okay, legalize it. Tax it and give them equal protections under the law. Not an issue.
    Now for the religious minded… you don’t need a pastor, priest, minister…etc to preform said marriages. Those would be religous marriages, governed by what ever religion the person or persons belief system allows. The happy couple could sign some type of waiver to bind themselves under said contract per the religous system. Again no big deal. That way Cathloics can have a Catholic Marriage and Lutherans, and Pagans etc adnausuam. It all works.
    But then again, that would be Too Easy! Then people couldn’t whine and bitch about it. It would resolve the issue for once and all and we can get to more important things like getting America back to work, and helping one another.

    Just my two cents worth.

  13. ARGH! When I saw this headline then the video clip I got really scared that somebody had got their fact-checking terribly wrong. Spotted the byline: PHEW.



  14. Never scare us Moistlings slash David Usher fans like that again!

    That’s like saying, “So, Jesus Christ the Lord Our Saviour actually hated women and lepers and this was his secret agenda…” and going on for several paragraphs while we read in horror and then laughing and saying, “Oh, wait, no, not THAT Jesus… You didn’t think…?”

    But I mean, obvs not a fair comparison, since David Usher has way better hair than Jesus, and writes way better songs.

    • OBVS I AM TALKING ABOUT CANADIAN MUSIC ICON DAVID USHER. I think we should call this other misogynistic jerk guy some other name. Like Misogynistic Jerk Guy.

  15. I broke up with my lover 3 months ago and it was horrible and I fell sick I because I could not stand the heart break, everything was so confusing and frustrating, I searched for help but could only get one source Dr.Mack on relationship the Internet I was scared before but I had no option so I gave it a try and behold he restored my relationship after 3 days, it was unbelievable, I was amazed that my boyfriend became mine again. If you in need of urgent help to get your lover back contact Dr.mac@yahoo. com he will save your relationship, contact
    Florida USA

Comments are closed.