The legal assault on heterosexual marriage must be met with constitutional arguments…
Shortly after the Massachusetts Supreme Court forced same-sex marriage on folks living Down East, I realized why defenders of marriage lost the case: they litigated morals and tradition in front of a secular court looking for an equal rights argument.
I quickly realized a principle that could have won the Goodridge case, and prevented subsequent losses in other states. The principle was first published in my February 2004 article “Why Gay Marriage Is Unconstitutional”.
“[Heterosexual] marriage is the first, and the greatest guarantor of human equality in history. It is the only civil rights institution that eliminates all natural and culturally-imposed social, economic, physical, and gender disparities of men and women. It is heterosexual marriage which forms the whole cloth of the human race.”
Forty-five states have enacted constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage, for good reasons beyond the most dangerous civil one: If any two women can marry each other, marriage will eventually become a feminist monopoly.
Feminists dearly want feminist marriage because it would feature at least six incomes: the earnings of two mothers, at least two sets of child support orders, and two sets of welfare entitlements. Feminists have invested tremendous resources litigating, whining, and screaming “discrimination” since the late 1980’s when they decided same-sex marriage was the best way to finally end all social attachments to men, ending poverty for single mothers, while making feminist marriage handsomely profitable.
Same-sex marriage has been official feminist doctrine since January 1988, when the N.O.W. Times highlighted a cryptic mandate issued by Sheila Cronin instructing normal women to pretend they are lesbian and to actively help realize the final goal:
“… The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be {identified} as a lesbian to be fully feminist. …” [emphasis added]
In the same-sex marriage battle, gays and lesbians are merely straw mannequins propped up in courtrooms for introduction of a scurrilous equal-rights argument. This sham is revealed in the Goodridge decision, which orders the state to marry any two humans who walk through the door regardless of their sexual proclivities.
Same-sex marriage and civil union equivalents would hyper-magnify disparities between the sexes and effectively segregate them into two classes of “haves” and “have nots” based on “marital preference”. Powerful economic motivators combined with racy sexual-liberation ideologies of radical feminism would propel women to take the final, pre-emptive step to fully control family, economic and health resources, politics, and law. It would also spell a secular end to religion as we know it.
Heterosexual marriage is weathering unrelenting legal assaults by multi-purpose feminist organizations who are misusing Violence Against Women (VAWA) and other federal program entitlement dollars to force same-sex marriage on America.
Seattle activists hope to weaken the legal tenet that marriage is synonymous with procreation by passing an inititiative requiring dissolution of any heterosexual marriage if a child has not been born within three years of marriage.
New York Mayor Bloomberg hopes to slyly make same-sex marriage legal by permitting anyone to arbitrarily change the sex listed on their birth certificate.
Despite not finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the New Jersey Supreme Court overstepped its authority ordering the legislature to create a civil simulation thereof The National Organization for Women promptly declared a qualified victory—insisting it will not settle for anything less than full same-sex marriage rights.
Phyllis Schlafly warns that President Bush must “un-sign” the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women [CEDAW]. Like the language of the ERA, equal-rights mandates in CEDAW could be applied to force same-sex marriage by international fiat.
Until same-sex marriage and civil unions are found unconstitutional, heterosexual marriage will slowly be whittled away by cities, legislatures and the courts. I am confident that my explication on heterosexual marriage, if fully developed by legal scholars, could be applied to stop same-sex marriage and civil unions, because it immediately proves that same-sex marriage and civil-union equivalents would commit grotesquely unequal wrongs in the name of equal rights.
One conservative legal scholar suggested that I am wrong in believing that same-sex marriage could be found unconstitutional. I disagree vigorously. Where establishment of same-sex marriage will unquestionably turn marriage into an institution that disenfranchises men in the family and society, pre-empting parental and economic rights simply because they cannot bear children from their own bodies, is to establish a separate and unequal form of government based on sex.
Men and women are unquestionably and tremendously different. The human species requires a strong civil and moral instrument guaranteed to automatically mitigate all differences that exist between the sexes, harnessing them collaboratively for pro-social purposes under God.
Feminism is the most dangerous indigenous cult in America. Its dual agenda of entitled liberation and predatory victimization continue to propel the growing divorce and illegitimacy crisises. Predatory feminism operates on the principles of repressive tolerance, espoused by Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse.
Evidence now proves that organized feminism has left more women and children in helplessness and poverty, living in dangerous streets, than any war in American history. America’s report card is found in UNICEF’s report “An Overview of Child Well-Being In Rich Countries”. Despite massive federal expenditures on the welfare-state nearing a half-trillion annually, the United States ranks number 20 out of 21 nations.
We must vigorously oppose any and all political candidates who support either civil unions or same-sex marriage, regardless of their positions on other issues. America cannot survive if we permit it to be run by entitled feminism.
We must not permit feminists to conveniently monopolize the institution of marriage after having gone to extraordinary lengths to destroy it. The answer to the majority of our socio-economic problems begins with protecting the civil institution of traditional marriage. Once this is accomplished we must reform federal and state policies that seriously weaken marriage via an acid combination of no-fault divorce laws and automated entitlements for illegitimacy and divorce.
David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network
Posts
