The Dangers of Feminist Marriage!

Wow, this is a special kind of crazy. From Manboobz we find this post from David Usher of the Center for Marriage Policy explaining the latest reason you should fight against the evil tyranny of same-sex marriage: It’s a Trojan horse to allow “Feminist Marriage” which will destroy America!

If you’re only going to read one of those two links above, read the Manboobz one, it’s a lot funnier. I really have no idea what I just read. It’s a sort of paranoid fantasy spun out of, as far as I can tell, a single line spoken nearly 24 years ago. From the CMP post:

Same-sex marriage has been the foremost long-term goal of the National Organization for Women (NOW) since January 1988 when feminist leader Sheila Cronin issued this mandate to feminists: “The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.”  Her message was clear.  You do not have to be a lesbian, but you must support our transformative political marriage agenda or you are not a feminist.

This is the only source I could see in that post for the entire conspiracy theory that follows. Without context, I’ve no idea what Sheila Cronin meant by that, but it occurs to me that one of the most common things heard out of the mouth of stooges of the fucking patriarchy to feminist women is “dyke”.

I certainly don’t see how this one sentence leads to same-sex marriage being a political smokescreen for creating a system where two straight women marry each other in order to live on welfare and child support payments from men they trap by saying they’re on birth control when they really aren’t. Yeah, married to someone you can’t love, surrounded by children you only had for monetary gain, whom you must spend your time caring for while constantly fighting with the government and the fathers to maintain your income. Sounds like heaven.

Bizarrely, his scenario has no actual gay people getting gay married. Seriously! Straight men will marry each other, but he never says why. I mean look at this:

Most men in these marriages will still have regular sexual encounters with women.

I think perhaps Mr Usher is confused about what “homosexual” means.

Frankly, the more I read that post, the more I’m convinced it’s the real smokescreen. David Usher titled that post “Why Same-Sex Marriage is Unconstitutional”, yet he spends the entire article talking about this phantasmal “Feminist Marriage” instead. Maybe there’s a simpler answer here, maybe he simply couldn’t make a case against actual gay marriage and created this strawman to fight instead.

The only other way this makes sense is if he genuinely believes that nobody, not just the evil wimmins but nobody, actually has any romance or capacity for love. A sad thought, but not impossible.

About Leo Tarvi

Mostly fictional.

Posted on December 7, 2011, in Daily Post and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Speak your mind!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: