Banning Gay Marriage and Civil Unions Is A Step Forward
November 6, 2005
by David R. Usher
The Economist magazine, a perennial drummer of the feminist liberal world view, does not like much about Texas. The current issue attacks Texas’s amendment 434 (Proposition 2), which will ban same-sex marriage. Passage appears to be certain. This follows Texas’s ban on civil unions, enacted two years ago.
The Economist likens amendment 434 to darker days in the early history of Texas statehood, when voting by idiots, lunatics, paupers, and women was banned.
Fortunately, this article also reveals the abject lack of fact and reason that gay and lesbian advocates have in their arsenal opposing the amendment: if “marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman” and Texas is barred from “creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage”, then since marriage is identical to marriage, presumably it will not be recognized.
Moral: you can fool the idiots and lunatics on the Massachusetts supreme court all of the time, but you can’t fool Texas even some of the time.
The following letter to the editor of the Economist takes them to task for believing that same-sex marriage is somehow a valid world perspective. I doubt it will be published because the Economist does not like being called out on the carpet. It contains a succinct, powerful distillation of my previous articles on this issue. I encourage all who are fighting to protect marriage and family to apply these winning points in their work:
Dear Sirs,
Texas’s amendment 434, which will ban same-sex marriage, (“Gay Marriage In Texas, Oct. 29, 2005), is not a “step back in time”. It is a rejection of the feminist inquisition of family and society. Same-sex marriage is a feminist devise of the late 1970’s intentionally designed to end structural economic problems faced by single-mothers and to finally make men irrelevant.
Their plan was to allow any two women the right to “marry” each other, have at least four sources of income (their incomes plus two child support orders), with men having no standing in family or society. Women would have complete economic and sexual autonomy, while men would end up disenfranchised parents, boy-toys and slaves to feminism.
Gays and lesbians were the victim-class misused to turn Massachusetts into a matriarchy. Massachusetts must now marry any two humans who enter a license office, regardless of sexual orientation. For this reason, gays and lesbians are an invalid class for the purpose of constitutional marriage litigation. Same-sex marriage is unconstitutional where women’s choices would create two distinct classes of “marriage”, based on sex, one chattel to the other. In contrast, heterosexual marriage is exclusively constitutional because it erases all physical, economic, and social disparities that would otherwise exist between the sexes, and even races.
I realized the above shortly after the Massachusetts Goodridge decision was rendered. We have not lost a case since I communicated this information to Liberty Counsel, Family Research Council, and other organizations opposing this end-stage Marxist power grab.
David R. Usher is a Legislative Analyst for the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition.
