NPR Story Proves That Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions are Unconstitutional
May 26, 2005
by David R. Usher
In previous articles “Why Gay Marriage is Unconstitutional” and “Why Civil Unions Are Unconstitutional, Too”, I demonstrated at length why same-sex marriage and civil unions are unconstitutional. You may wish to read these so you can see why a recent NPR story proved my points and theory are, in fact, correct.
Massachusetts became the one and only constitutional matriarchy in the nation when its Supreme Court forced same-sex marriage on the state. The Massachusetts Supreme Court actually thinks that women (regardless of sexual orientation) should be able to marry so they can have all the civil and economic benefits of marriage while capturing sole control of the construct of family and children.
Massachusetts men now live a predatory society based on organized fatherlessness, simply because children are presumed to be chattel of women at birth. Purging fathers from society by allowing women to “choose” a sexist form of marriage goes against parallel tenets of racial civil rights law -- which does not allow whites to choose to discriminate against blacks in any manner.
I was astonished to hear an NPR interview of lesbians and gays in Massachusetts on Tuesday, May 17th, in which the professionals and lesbians interviewed proved my point for me.
In the story “Gay Marriage in Massachusetts, One Year Later” (windows WMA audio), Economist Lee Badgett of the University of Amherst was interviewed. A telling statistic was cited about who is marrying:
Narrator (2:40): “Of the 48 couples, 12 are male, 36 female. That’s consistent with statewide data, that found women make up 2/3 of the more that 6100 same sex couples who married in the past year”.
Narrator (3:00): “She (Badgett) is not surprised that women are marry at roughly twice the rate as men.”
Lee Badgett: “Most likely this reflects the difference in who has kids. In Mass, lesbian couples are about twice as likely to have kids as gay male couples are. Marriage represents stability -- people might want to demonstrate that to their children by getting married”.
Analysis: Lee Badgett admitted that the purpose of same sex marriage is to turn marriage into a feminist institution centered around the biology of “who can physically bear children and who can not”. This admits that sex is being used as the vehicle to enforce social and economic discrimination against men in family, society, via the vehicle of same-sex marriage. It revolves around a transmogrification of marriage from a civil equal-rights institution as between men and women to an uncivil institution -- creating separate and unequal classes of individuals -- in which the sex of the “married” individuals is the basis for predicable and substantial forms of social and economic discrimination.
Marriage is subject to strict scrutiny under the constitution. Discrimination based on sex is also afforded strict scrutiny. Discrimination based on sexual function is discrimination on the basis of sex. Marriages between two men are substantively deprecated in terms of economic, reproductive, and social rights in comparison to those between two women.
In terms of economics, same-sex marriage creates three unequal classes of marriages. Marriages by two women have six sources of income -- the incomes of two women, two sets of child support (with hidden alimony), and two sets of welfare entitlements. Heterosexual marriages only have two incomes. Marriages between two men are likely to be paying child support and hidden alimony.
In terms of parental rights, same sex marriage establishes two unequal classes of marriages. Marriages involving two women have full parental rights and control of children by presumption of women’s sexual birth function. Heterosexual marriages also have full parental rights and control of children. Marriages involving two men are unlikely to have children. When they do, the men are unlikely to have any substantive parental rights, if any at all.
In terms of social rights, same-sex marriage also creates two unequal classes of marriages. The family consisting of a mother and father and children is the bedrock of society. Much social power, respect, esteem, and political power rise from this institution. By replacing the husband with a woman, men cannot be a central part of society as we know it. In this construct, they are held at arm’s length on the periphery of society, essentially harnessed as economic slaves to a institution they cannot become an integral part of.
Where women’s choices to marry each other admittedly and statistically result in prima facie discrimination against men, simply because of sexual function of reproductive organ, same sex marriage cannot survive a test for constitutionality.
The state cannot demonstrate an overriding concern in support of same-sex marriage. In fact, the state has billions of overriding concerns in support of heterosexual marriage and strengthening this institution. The billions of dollars we spend trying to repair fatherless children speaks for itself.
The Massachusetts legislature must act to invalidate the Supreme Court decision in Goodridge. Congress and President Bush must also act to pass federal legislation to ensure that the takeover of marriage via a predatory radical-feminist legal devise cannot ever take place.
David R. Usher is a Legislative Analyst for the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition.
