Why would a lesbian want a man and a penis, you ask? For babies, of course! Because even if women are marrying women, they will need penises and they know where to find them! They will pretend they are using birth control – you know how women are – and the “Entrapped men [will] become economically-conscripted third parties to these marriages.”
And of course, given how truly evil women are, they will also collect welfare benefits from the state and heterosexual couples will become “economically disadvantages” through being tapped to support lesbian couples.
Oh, how did it come to this?
But it gets worse!
Even gay men will become victims of this lesbian plot, being tricked into having sex with lesbians because – and I think Usher is projecting here (just sayin’) – apparently even gay men want to put their penises into lesbians. So gay men will be tricked into making babies for lesbians and then being forced by the system to support them:
Marriages between two men are destined to be the natural underclass. 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 bit-maternal marriages, and become economically enslaved to lesbian unions.
I sure hope Usher didn’t lose too much sleep coming up with this scheme:
Men will be forced to labor for the economic benefit of marriages between women – marriages men have been redefined out of – by the choice of two women who married with intention to have children by men outside of marriage. This approaches the definition of slavery – and perhaps sexual trafficking or bondage.
Oh dear. He did stay up nights, didn’t he? And the whacking sounds probably kept up the neighbors, and at the very least, frightened his dog and any nearby sheep.
It’s amazing that with all the genuine problems we have in the world, conservatives can put so much effort into fabricating problems that do not and in all likelihood will never exist, and put them at the forefront of the Republican mission.
For Usher, marriage is not only an exclusively hetero thing, it’s the only marriage that’s constitutional:
Why heterosexual marriage is exclusively constitutional
Heterosexual marriage is the only constitutional form of marriage because it is the only possible arrangement that automatically confers equal social, economic, and parental rights to all married men and women regardless of one’s ability to naturally bear a child. Same-sex marriage immediately bifurcates these rights, destroying equality between men and women.
Never mind that not only does the U.S. Constitution not mention marriage, it does not mention lesbians or lesbian love-babies. And it sure doesn’t give the impression that the best way to bestow equality is to make everybody unequal, as Usher proposes. But then he comes from a political party that believes stripping away freedoms is somehow freedom. Freedom from freedom, I suppose.
Ah, never mind. He is probably using David Barton’s top-secret copy of the Constitution. You know the one: it’s written in black, brown, and gray crayon.
And after all, Usher himself, who apparently doesn’t have a degree, “spent many years independently studying law, social policy, management science, psychology, sociology, and culture.”
Which in conservative-speak means Usher is what you call an expert.
Back in 2011, Ed Brayton over at Freethought Blogs examined Usher’s conception of three classes of marriage established by feminists (unsurprisingly, Usher fears strong women): feminist marriage, heterosexual marriage, and male-male marriage. As Brayton said at the time, “There are so many levels of crazy going on here you won’t believe it.”
Back then, Usher was arguing that marriage equality was nothing but a feminist marketing ploy to distract us from their plot but it seems Usher has now fallen for it, obsessing as he does over gays and lesbians tying the knot.
Feminists apparently forgotten, Usher now warns that,
Progressives hope to establish an irreversible system of choice-based sex discrimination against men operating similarly to pre-civil-rights racism, when discrimination against blacks was commonplace with respect to property, political, and voting rights. Individuals cannot “choose” to red-line blacks out of the housing market. Individuals cannot “choose” an arrangement impressing blacks to support them with nothing in return. This is precisely what gay marriage will do to all men of all races.
Usher argues that the recent Supreme Court DOMA ruling was a “preventable” loss and he, like every conservatives, harbors hope that time can be reversed to a point at which women were still slaves and men could put their sperm wherever they wanted to unless they were gay, in which case they had to keep their sperm or else, and where lesbians never, ever, had independent access to sperm under any circumstances!
If we consistently apply the equitable principles outlined in this article, we can defend state constitutional bans and send the issues back to the Supreme Court for consideration on equitable matters.
What’s funny about this hope is that it’s so laughable. As Brayton wrote in 2011,
I want to be there to see the look on a judge’s face when this whacko files a legal brief making those arguments. I don’t care if it’s the most conservative judge you can find. Even Scalia and Thomas would find those arguments laughable.
And now Usher has added lesbian sex slaves to his briefs (pun intended). Yeah, I think Brayton is right. Even Scalia and Thomas would fall over laughing at this pseudo-legal babble.
And they might get a chance:
The Center for Marriage Policy is currently drafting a preliminary brief with the assistance of a ranking constitutional scholar.
Boy, I sure hope their “ranking constitutional scholar” is David Barton!