The new anti-marriage equality argument: it would promote “feminist marriage”

[alp227]

In a new column, David Usher, president of the Center for Marriage Policy, a right-wing group endorsed by Phyllis Schlafly, argues that marriage equality should be considered unconstitutional because it would allow for the possibility of “feminist marriage”.

Now before you go getting excited like I did when I first heard this news, he’s not talking about some sort of feminist utopian partnership model where both parties participate equally in the duties and responsibilities of marriage (although that is surely what I think of when I think about a “feminist marriage”!). No, unfortunately, Usher is defining “feminist marriage” as “a marriage between any two women and the welfare state”. It isn’t necessarily sexual, and in fact would allow both parties to have relations outside of marriage. Well, let me let him explain it (because he does it so well!) He writes:

“Forget the terms “same sex” and “gay” marriage. These are victim-based marketing ploys invented N.O.W. 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 entitle it.

full: http://feministing.com/2011/11/28/the-new-anti-marriage-equality-argument-it-would-promote-%E2%80%9Cfeminist-marriage%E2%80%9D/

[NMMNG]

1. Whatever that guy's on

I don't want any. It obviously has fried his brain.

[RainDog]

2. LOL. n/t

[yardwork]

3. And gay men will be tricked into being the baby-daddies!

From the bizarre rant by David Usher, linked at the link:

Male-Male marriages: Marriages between two men are designed to be a “marital underclass”. In most cases, these men will become “fathers” without consent. Women in feminist marriages will not mention they stopped using birth control. Male-male marriages will be forced to pay child support to feminist marriages and become economically-enslaved to them. The taxpayer will be forced to pay for child support men cannot afford to pay, as occurs in out existing welfare state.

[The Genealogist]

4. They're arguments against marriage equality are losing ground

so they have created this absurd "argument" which sounds more like word salad than anything to me.

[seabeyond]

5. feminist is hated more than gay.... as a whole. they are the evil of all evils in this world

i am hearing it more and more. especially on the cnn board. so you are probably right on. throw in feminist, and there is a whole new level of hate.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. Guess that means no more palling up with Shlafly, or the AFA, etc.

...despite their "cutting-edge science" and "brave anti-pornography stance"


...right? :shrug:

[seabeyond]

7. i dont know afa and shlafly is not a feminist.... i dont get what you are playing at

too subtle. if you have something to say, say it.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. You don't remember the various times you've quoted AFA "studies" and "scientists"?

The AFA is The "American Family Association", James Dobson's outfit.

My point, and I'll say it straight out, is that too often self-identified members of the 'left' have made alliances of convenience with these shitwits because they think to find them more sympathetic on assorted culture or control issues than dreaded 'libertarian' minded liberals. So to summarize: The religious right aren't your buddies. They're not on your "side". Don't enable them.

Just so we're clear.

[seabeyond]

12. so, because the right has an issue with porn, all of the left is not allowed to say porn can harm

the user, society as a whole and women in general?

you do find one way or another to get people to shut up, not allowing them the freedom of speech you throw your tantrums about.

ONE time, i posted a study commissioned by the afa. one time. and along with that study were three others that were not from the afa. and that study was only about the number of male porn users. it wasnt high enough for you. you set a high bar of looking for all things that you dont find objectionable, when pertaining to info porn harms. i found one that met all the requirements. male (cannot be a woman, you have names for women). well educated. studying subject for a couple decades. liberal university. no mention of morality in his article. no mention of religion on his site.

and still, you went off on a bogus rant dismissing the man as religious, without a single iota of evidence.

dont lecture me on alliance with the right. it is bullshit. the womens position on the left has NOTHING to do with religion or morality. but, since you do not listen, refuse to listen, and even make things up in this argument, i am not surprised at all with this post of yours. it is the same made up argument you use repeatedly, regardless of being told otherwise.

bottom line

it is dishonest.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Someone's OPINION that 'porn harms' is not science.

Robert Jensen having testicles doesn't give him some special cred when he bleats the standard pro-censorship (oh, right, he doesnt want censorship, he just wants to "balance so-called free speech concerns", yadda yadda, which is functionally indistinguishable from 'censorship') line... you know, when he's not busy trying to reconcile liberalism with his allegedly 'progressive' Christianity.

"so-called free speech"? :eyes:

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc.

And what about the times you quoted opinion pieces by Bill Bennett? You DO know who Bill Bennett is, don't you?

I don't know why Jensen being a man adds any weight to his ridiculous arguments. You've been confronted by numerous sex-positive feminist women who think porn is a fine expression of sexual freedom, yet the opinion of those women (or, as one of your threadmates called them, 'idiots') is routinely written off despite their gender.

Sorry, no sale.

[eShirl]

8. hilarious

[bengalherder]

10. These are the people who freaked everybody out about 'Unisex Bathrooms'

Back in the day.

I've been in plenty of 'Unisex Bathrooms' since and haven't had any embarassing 'malfunctions'.


I'd like to settle down to a sexless relationship with another female. Sounds actually sane at this point.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. What's funny is, culturally, in terms of acceptance of GLBT citizens, etc, we're WAY beyond

Shlafly and Anita Bryant's worst fucking 1970s nightmares.

Funny how that's turned out, along with all the other developments in our society. :shrug: :rofl:

[JHB]

13. Is this a capitulation of a sort? Are they going to a fall-back position?

What they're doing here is trying to make an argument against marriage equality that isn't just "but then <homophobic pejorative deleted>'s could marry!!!!"

They never needed any other reason to be against marriage equality before. Their desire to stamp out any Unauthorized Sexual Practice(tm) was all they needed. Now they're fishing for other justifications, and true to form they're using the specter of "those <misogynistic pejorative deleted>'s" to do it.


It's still vile and needs to be countered, but in one sense it's an almost astonishing concession from them that their favored position is no longer tenable.

[Solly Mack]

14. Snort

lololol