Yes, they just make this stuff up. They really do. I mean the Christian Right, of course, who else would be so blatant in their dishonesty?
Consider David Usher of the "Center for Marriage Policy," which is just a name the fundamentalist Christian group RenewAmerica gives itself when they want to pontificate on marriage. He claims the recent Supreme Court ruling on marriage created three legal classes for marriage. Now, you are welcome to go read those decisions yourself and you'll find NO such thing in them at all. Usher is just making the stuff up to scare fundamentalist Christians into sending donations to his group.
Usher starts by claiming only heterosexual marriage is constitutional. Actually, the Constitution says no such thing either. This is as bad as Ron Paul claiming the Constitution to be "replete" with references to God. Neither claim is accurate; both were pandering to a certain audience for fundraising reasons.
Usher claims "Class 1" marriages are "when two women marry." He says they will "bear children by men outside the marriage -- often by pretending they are using birth control when they are not." This is how lesbians entrap (his word, not mine) men into becoming "conscripted third parties to these marriages." Yes, lesbians are out to enslave men. Now, I'm sorry, but that sounds more like a geeky adolescent male's masturbatory fantasies, than reality. Not that I'm saying Usher is a geeky, heterosexual male. His picture only confirms the geeky part. Frankly, it sounds as though he's been reading more Penthouse Letters than anything else in his "research."
He goes as far as claiming that when all the women marry each other men were "have been 'redlined' out -- by the choice of two women who married with intention to have children by men outside the marriage. This approaches the definition of slavery..."
Not only will lesbians conscript men, but women from all over America will rush out to marry other women. Usher claims, "They can combine incomes, double-up on tax-free child support and welfare benefits," and are "sexually liberated with boyfriends cohabiting with them to provide undeclared income." Are the boyfriends cohabiting or conscripted? He seems to imply two contradictory things, a clear sign he studied theology.
"Class 2" marriages are male-female couples, which will never have access to welfare benefits that seem available to lesbian couples, although they will be taxed to subsidize lesbians, according to Usher. Of course, one point known by actual experts in the field is that welfare benefits are based on the income of both partners. This is true whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex couples. Usher's scenario is pure fantasy. There is NOT one set of qualifications for female couples, a second for opposite sex couples and a third for male couples.
Contrary to Usher's claims, the reality is the exact opposite of what he says. Anti-equality marriage laws may allow one gay person to claim benefits to which he or she would not be entitled if considered as married instead.
The "marital underclass" in Usher's invented theory is that of male-male marriages. He asserts: "In most cases, these men will become un-consenting "fathers" by reproductive entrapment. Men in male-male marriages who become fathers by deceptive means will be forced to pay child support to women in bi-maternal marriages and become economically enslaved to Class-1 marriages." Somehow, I don't see gay men becoming "fathers by deceptive means" to be a major problem.
The underlying premise in Usher's rant is that there are actually no homosexual people. He has people simply choosing to enter in gay marriages as if there is no such thing as sexual orientation. Consider his male-male couples being entrapped by women from lesbian marriages to have sex with them so that the lesbian can collect welfare. Generally speaking men in male-male couples are the least likely to be "entrapped" by lesbians with the promise of sex. He seems to assume that everyone is heterosexual and that people just choose to be gay because of all the "benefits" he imagines that gay people enjoy, but which are denied to heterosexuals.
What world does he live in?
Usher's sexual fantasy is a long one and he quickly descends into more typical attacks on gay people. His real conclusion is that allowing gay people to marry somehow means "men will become rump-class servants to the bi-maternal welfare state."
Sorry, but the only rump I see around here is Mr. Usher. And "rump" is the polite word for it.
How will Donald Trump’s first 100 days impact YOU? Subscribe, choose the community that you most identify with or want to learn more about and we’ll send you the news that matters most once a week throughout Trump’s first 100 days in office. Learn more