Marriage Hatred - Feminist Driven | |
A Masterful piece. Quote:
David R. Usher
From California, With H8
2008-11-14 at 10:18 pm · Filed under 2008, Economics, Family, Fatherhood, Feminism, Judicial Activism, Law, Men's Rights Activism, OP/ED, Politics, Society, Vox Populi
In the wake of the passage of California’s Proposition 8, Gays and Lesbians are showing their true colors displaying great hate of heterosexuals and just about everything we do.
Saturday, November 15th 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 disingenous. “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 kindergarteners by taking them on school field trips to witness lesbian marriages. They say they want “gay marriage”, but litigate strenously 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 leader 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. want all women to pretend they are lesbians, and fully devote themselves, for something 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 80% 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 props to make their litigation appear “gender neutral” and avoid their initiative as being seen as deeply feminist.
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 erases all physical, economic, social, and culturally-imposed differences 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. Same-sex marriage is the polar antithesis of equality because it maximizes every tangible disparity that exists between women and men.”
George Washington was married without a state marriage license, as was virtually everyone back then. The Constitution was written intending for Churches to have exclusive control of marriage - protected as a fundamental right. It was not 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 this 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 |
I have tried all my life to leave the place better than I found it. But there are 6 billion other buggers out there messing it up. I am outnumbered. But... YOU don't just make a difference, you make THE difference. |
16th-November-2008
