May 30, 2005

Memorial Day

This country owes its freedom to the skill and bravery of our soldiers.

David R. Usher Provides Insights into the Distortions Gay Marriage Can Impose on Society

Les Enfant Terrible points out David R. Usher’s insights into why gay marriage is destructive to society, including:

America has unsuccessfully wrestled with welfare problems for years, and so has the National Organization for Women. Their plan is to reform welfare by creating the married two-mother “super-family”, making the economics of the traditional “two-parent” family work for any two-mother married household regardless of sexual preference.

I call this arrangement a “super-family” because it would have six sources of income: the incomes of two married mothers, two sets of child-support orders, and two sets of welfare entitlements. Heterosexual marriages have only two incomes, and would clearly be an economically inferior choice.

Think about that. Under current law, two women could have children by men, leave the men, marry each other, and now they have six sources of income: “the incomes of two married mothers, two sets of child-support orders, and two sets of welfare entitlements”. One may consider this unlikely, but it’s not unlikely if society encourages it and rewards it financially. It is an established management principal that what gets measured (and rewarded) gets done. Here, there would be measurement and reward. The result: half of society (the males) are attacked and even oppressed.

This one is a jaw-dropper:

We already know that single fathers represent less than 10% of all single-parent households. This is not because men walk away from the family or do not want to be parents. It is because when a child is born out of wedlock, custody automatically goes to the mother. In divorce, we see similar single-father household statistics – over 75% of divorces are filed by women. The 10% of fathers who do have custody occur usually because the mother did not want custody.

Coupled with:

Heterosexual marriage prevents segregation along gender lines. We have not yet realized that the “divorce revolution” is really a misnomer for gender-segregation – with extremely high costs. Divorce and non-marriage are the primary predictors of poverty for women and children, along with a wide array of expensive, intractable social problems.

In other words, encouraging divorce has been disastrous for women.

How about this:

If two men married, they would not be able to have children. We can say decisively that Goodridge creates inequality by making all men a reproductively subordinated class, who perhaps could only become legitimate parents through adoption. Adoption is not reproduction, and cannot be considered an equalizing factor.

Coupled with:

It is clear that proponents of same-sex marriage are selling gender segregation, in a manner not unlike Stephen A. Douglas’s losing argument before the civil war suggesting that popular sovereignty made slavery merely a matter of choice.

What gets measured (and rewarded) gets done.

Check this out:

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.

In marriage, it matters not who can bear children, who can financially support the family, or who can fix the SUV. The differences of the sexes are completely equalized and harnessed for the overall good of society, the economy, and the raising of children.

I will conclude with another quote from Usher:

Marriage is the constitutional construct creating a place for men in family and society. Margaret Mead expressed this decisively when she said; “Motherhood is a biological fact, fatherhood a social creation”. The reason why marriage between men and women is an unfettered constitutional right is because its equalizing power is uniquely fundamental to the success of the human race and society itself; where this absolute right does not affect anyone adversely because it is totally inclusive of both sexes.

...We must now grant to fathers the same right to be in the family as we have granted to women in the workplace.

What gets measured (and rewarded) gets done. In the case of encouraging gay marriage, the resulting effect on society would be disastrous. Indeed, it already has been, as noted in this previous post:

...gay rights was strongly correlated with demographic decline: 5 (50%) of the 10 most rapidly dying states and 6 (32%) of the 19 dying states have gay rights …. No growing state has gay rights.

Usher has identified some of the reasons why gay marriage has been opposed by human societies throughout history.