California Gay Marriage: A State In Irreversible Decline

In California, any two women will soon be able to “marry” each other (sexual orientation being completely irrelevant), have as many “love children” they want by bedding down boy-toys, and get paid tremendous sums of money for doing so.  Such a marriage will feature an average of four to six incomes: the incomes of the two women, at least two sets of child support orders, and two sets of welfare entitlements.




[Dave Usher occasionally writes a landmark article. This is one of them ~ editor]


California, the formerly bell-weather state, just became a state for which the bell tolls by making “same-sex” marriage legal.


A brief reading of the very long decision by the California Supreme Court left me believing that aliens already inhabit planet earth and even run a state from a star chamber dominated by Republicans (who should know better).


The lengthy ruling made no mention of the most important issue before them: what is the actual purpose of heterosexual marriage in terms of human rights, and what might the impact be of fully detaching the purpose of marriage from sex itself?


Heterosexual marriage is the only constitutional legal framework that naturally creates equal social, economic, parental, and civil rights between men and women.  It is intuitively obvious to all that men and women are distinctly different in many ways.   Heterosexual marriage is the only institution creating “one” human race and preventing it from becoming two races pitted against each other.


Women can bear children, men cannot.  Women are the presumed custodians of children in marriage and divorce.  Men are the presumed recipients of large child support orders, and often the majority of marital debts in divorce.  


The vast difference between our treatment of men and women is overwhelmingly proven simply by mentioning everyday terminology describing the results of the divorce and illegitimacy revolution:  We think of single mothers as needing help, and single fathers as being deadbeats.   This proves beyond all doubt that vast inequalities exist in the absence of heterosexual marriage.


“Same-sex” marriage a legal fiction created by feminists to circumvent the brutal inequalities and corollary damage they caused in their successful execution of the war on heterosexual marriage (feminists prefer calling this women’s liberation).  Their idea is to go one step further: to turn marriage into an exercise in double-matriarchy.


N.O.W.’s plan has always been to kick men out of marriage and then replace them with women.  They want this last victory because it gives women a total monopoly over reproduction and the social institution of family, the incomes of men, and absolute sexual liberation.


In California, any two women will soon be able to “marry” each other (sexual orientation being completely irrelevant), have as many “love children” they want by bedding down boy-toys, and get paid tremendous sums of money for doing so.  Such a marriage will feature an average of four to six incomes: the incomes of the two women, at least two sets of child support orders, and two sets of welfare entitlements. 


With profit options and sexual freedoms like this, who would want to marry a man in California, except for perhaps another man?


California has now gone into the business of state-sponsored serial polymory.   The parallels to the FLDS case in Texas are astonishing – only the sexes are reversed.  However, instead of have a few religious nuts running a small sect, we have an entire state becoming one under color of Constitutional law. 


California has 108,000 same-sex couples.  In Massachusetts, the wide majority of those “marrying” are women (an outcome that is entirely predictable under this socioeconomic analysis). If Massachusetts same-sex math holds true, California would come out of the gate with 81,000 families owned by dominatrix feminists, and at least 81,000 disenfranchised men who are third-class citizens.  Just like the divorce revolution, which started out small, this figure will explode as N.O.W. executes its heretofore hidden agenda — convincing the vastly larger body of heterosexual women that they should do this too — gaining tremendous advantages over heterosexual marriage without being lesbians.


Readers must understand that ending the ban on interracial marriage is not a valid comparison (as proponents frequently claim) in calling for an end to the ban on same-sex marriage.   There were great disparities between the races which were reduced by allowing blacks (or other races) to marry whites.   Same-sex marriage reduces no disparities – because women are not different from women, and men are not different from other men.  Same-sex marriage unquestionably increases well-known disparities that exist between men and women.


The U.S. Constitution (which states must observe) bars discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or creed.  One’s sexual idiosyncrasies are not nearly a match, even where in some cases genes may have some effect. 


Beyond the obvious destruction of heterosexual marriage guaranteed by the California ruling, there is one other tremendously detrimental effect:  every sexual perversion ever advertised in the Berkeley Barb has just been turned into a case for marital celebration.  This will not contain sexual perversions within marriage, rather, it will encourage much more of it in our public schools, on the streets, on television, and in our prisons.


Not only will these perversions become more public: we will have to walk on eggshells around them forever. Take the case of a New York lesbian who, dressed up as a man, was not permitted to use the ladies room at the Caliente Cab Restaurant despite being willing to show ID proving that she is a woman. The bouncer was not about to let anyone who looks like a man (or pretends to be one) wander into the women’s room and scare the dickens out of heterosexual women. 


It can also be assumed that any dyke lesbian who imagines herself a man probably also wants to prowl the restroom for a hookup, which means propositioning heterosexual women in the restroom.  Facts matter: we would never let men prowl the women’s room looking for a sexual adventure. In spite of the dark truths of this case, the dyke sued in court and won.


Gays and Lesbians litigated for the “right to marry”.  As in Massachusetts, the court did not question whether or not their request for relief was narrowly tailored to relieve the issue (which is required in Constitutional decisions).  Instead, the court went well beyond the stated “need” of gays and lesbians in essentially requiring the State of California to marry any two women or any two men, regardless of proven sexual orientation.


Mark my words: California is headed into a much larger and darker form of gender-class warfare than ever attempted before in America.  And, California does not have the fiscal surpluses to cover the vast array of known social problems that will expand because men will be essentially turned into plantation slaves. 


The California crime waves of the 1970’s caused by teen boys of the early 60’s divorce revolution (which Police Chief Daryl Gates could not explain), may seem minor in comparison to what will happen when the welfare state marries itself and men are treated worse than ever before.


California is beset by tremendous social problems because two generations of young men and women were largely brought up in father-absent families.  Gangs are a major problem, the drugs they sell are destroying youth all across America, school shootings have become a “non-event”, and illegitimacy rates are skyrocketing.  Both boys and girls are violent.  And Hollywood sells us their insanity on cable television as “entertainment”.


A few days ago, Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger announced his intent to partially reduce California’s staggering $15.2-billion annual deficit by selling bonds against future lottery revenues. Schwarzenegger’s astonishing suggestion is a not-so-subtle clue that California is already a dead state: Lottery revenues are not a bondable physical thing. 


And that is not even mentioning the fact that states are not permitted to run deficits: only the Federal Government is permitted to do so – and for good reason.


California has outdone Al Capone: California has become self-will-run  mob far larger than Capone’s ever was, and is doing so under the pretense of being a “state”.  Its eventual failure will be far more devastating to the nation’s economy than the failures of Enron, the internet crisis, and the housing loan crisis.   Need I point out that California was the primary or major cause of all these crisises to begin with?


Now I will speak to the major driver behind the decision of the California Supreme Court.   Gay and lesbian litigation is a major income source for trial lawyers.   The A.B.A. and state Bar associations are, like any other trade association, instinctively pursue anything that makes more money.  Legalizing same-sex marriage opens up doors for explosive litigation in every state in the country, and opens even more doors for downstream litigation in literally every area of law. 


This explains why the California decision avoids the equal-rights guarantees that only heterosexual marriage naturally provides, and in its place puts in a decision bought by corruption in the legal profession.


One of these days, California will suffer an earthquake worse than the recent event that leveled an area of China far larger than the state of California.  While the bell would certainly toll if that were to happen, somehow I have a feeling we won’t have to wait that long.  The bell is already tolling for California.



David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network.


11 thoughts on “California Gay Marriage: A State In Irreversible Decline

  1. Received this from Restore America:

    Profound Error

    As quoted by Jan LaRue, respected family policy analyst in Washington D.C., Justice Baxter, joined by Justice Chin, in their dissenting opinion, called the ruling a “startling” act of “legal jujitsu” that “oversteps judicial power.”

    Baxter wrote:
    “I cannot join the majority’s holding that the California Constitution gives same-sex couples a right to marry. In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error. Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces today. So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage – an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law – is no longer valid.”

    Cominus comments:
    We have a judiciary who are making law, which is not their role, to shape social policy, i.e. morality, or the removal of it. They are the elite autocrats that cannot be denied.

  2. I very much enjoyed reading your post and believe that your comments concerning the expansion of inequality for men are very interesting. While California is messed up for many reasons, I would like to emphasize that it’s citizens–Californians themselves–do not appear to be the problem in this instance.

    The majority of Californians understand what marriage is and voted to cement its definition in the law. What’s wrong with California is FOUR state supreme court justices and powerful California special interest groups who don’t care what the majority of Californians want.

    Your “Mob operating under pretense of State government” is a most excellent analogy.

  3. A dissenting view:

    Hello everyone,

    I am new to your site. I first heard of The Reagan Wing when I was in Spokane (obviously, I was a Ron Paul delegate). I reside in the very heart of the WSRP, King County LD #5.

    I would describe myself as a Libertarian Republican after the fashion of Goldwater and Reagan. I am a bad Republican and a bad Libertarian, but I abhor socialism, so I’m not all bad. I’m a bad Republican because I will not support a candidate just because he or she is better than the Liberal alternative (i.e. McCain & Reichert). I am a bad Libertarian because I reject free market anarchy as a utopian concept that will always degrade to totalitarianism (just like communism). I love Ron Paul and have followed his writings for many years, but I’m even a bad “Paulie” because I do not believe it would be wise to abolish the Fed or go back to the gold standard (Fed transparency and competing currencies, I support).

    So I’m a very bad person. But I am a Christian and I will fight socialism till the day I die. So I have exactly two redeeming qualities. And, all of my energy will be focused on righting the Republican party.

    Oh, and I also have bad judgment. Being new, it would be wise of me to establish myself, write about all the things I agree with you about. And I agree with everything you stand for except for one point. So, in keeping with my poor judgment, let me bring up the one issue which I do not stand by you on – homosexuality.

    So you know where I’m coming from, I am straight, a Christian, attend church every Sunday, pro-Life, was raised in the Bible belt in the quintessential “family values” family, and my Dad was even a minister for a time. Up until maybe 10 years ago I would not have supported same-sex marriage. But now I recognize that it is hypocritical for me to not support same-sex marriage, because to do so is to embrace collectivism.

    I think everyone here rejects collectivism. We believe in the individual. We reject the collectivist welfare state. But what is it when we demand that a minority embrace our social values, but collectivism.

    We must remember that we are a religious people, but a secular nation. The principle that our nation was founded on were that the rights of the individual are supreme and must be protected equally. Society’s “norms” or the will of the collective cannot be forced upon the individual. Collectivism for what we deeply believe to be a morally just cause is still collectivism.

    If we truly value the individual over the collective, then that must also apply to individual moral and ethical decisions that do not harm or infringe on the rights of others.

    When Republicans move to legislate morality, they become indistinguishable from liberals who believe in using the power of the state to protect or advance their favored interest.

    That being said, it is perfectly acceptable and according to the intentions of our founding fathers for local governments to determine “acceptable behavior”, but the federal government is constitutionally, and purposely restricted from doing so.
    It is perfectly acceptable to support “family values” candidates. But when we propose things like a family values marriage amendment, we are supporting social collectivism.

    Yes, I am a very bad person.

    Thanks for allowing me a venue to speak my most unpopular (at least among conservatives) opinion.

  4. Rob (at 4):
    The purpose of a Federal Marriage Amendment is not to change anything, but to prevent lawless Judges from disassembling current State law under the color of Constitutional law that doesn’t exist.

    Lawrence vs. Texas, asserting a Constitutional right to homosexuality, was just such a Constitutional Crime, using the false claim of Federal Constitutional law to violate the Constitution, creating Federal social policy. (And it should be noted that Huckabee endorsed the decision before he found out how unpopular it was with his constituency.)

    It is the collectivists who have framed the issue as if it were an attempt by marriage supporters to advance their cause with Federal legislation. You fell for it.

    “Legislate Morality”:
    Every law makes something illegal. That is its purpose. If there is an activity, like, say, wearing a blue shirt, that violates no moral principle, it shouldn’t be illegal. The governemnt has no right to make innocent acts illegal. The only thing government has the right to proscribe are acts that are so wrong they are an agression against the innocent. The only thing, in essence, government has a right to legislate, is morality: prohibiting acts that are always wrong, and not just any wrong, but eggregious evils, like abortion (murder) or homosexual solicitation (which is, in principle, the same as an inducement to heroin addiction without a warning label and permanantly ruins and shortens the lives of innocent young people).

  5. Rob,

    First, I would say that ultimate result of your reasoning is anarchy.

    Second, the judicial activism in California has nothing to do with the Federal government acting in a collectivist fashion. This is currently a State issue, and therefore limited in its scope.

    Third, I agree that you are a very bad person and have bad judgment. 🙂

  6. It’s funny that you call me an anarchist because I have a group I interact with that are free market anarcchist and continually chastise me for not being free market enough. I will agree that states should have the right to set whatever laws they see fit – that’s the way our government was designed.

    I totally disagree that the government should legislate morality – religious freedom is the single reason our nation was formed. Our founding fathers could have never agreed on what was moral by each of their various forms of Christianity, but they all agreed that life, liberty, and property were basic fundamental human rights. There is no “right to homosexuality”, but likewise homosexuals have a right to equal protection under the law. If it were not the fact that the government has bestowed certain priviliges with marriage it would not be an issue.

    So the law should protect ONLY life liberty and property equally. So yes maybe I’m a bit of an anarchist. BTW one of Reagan’s key influences was Bastiat – an anarchist (though the term did not exist then).

    I think I like being bad!

  7. I think I said that the founding fathers agreed to life, liberty, & property in 8. So I guess you are saying that life, liberty, & property are moral judgements. Fine. I’ll give you that. I restate all of my above references to legislating morality as being social collectivism to refer to any and all moral judgement BEYOND life, liberty, & property.

    At this point I hope we can agree that arguing further on symmantics is a waste of time. We’ve both made our points.

  8. Rob,

    I might point out that the inalienable rights that the Founders referred to were rights that we are all endowed with by our Creator. Heterosexual sexual relationships are clearly designed in nature and have the purpose of perpetuating the human species. And the institution of marriage is the perpetual, monogamous commitment of the man and woman to establish and raise a family. This is a natural order of things and the basis of most any society. Unlike the CA Court’s opinion, the state and government generally should have a compelling interest in preserving and promoting healthly families and investing in families. So the “gay marriage” issue has nothing to do with equal protection, and everything to do with re-defining marriage.

    One cannot plausibly argue that the Founders believed homosexual sexuality is an inalienable right endowed to homosexuals by their Creator. Furthermore, you consistently argue that any legislation of morality is somehow strictly “religious” in origin. WRONG!

    Morality is not necessarily religious. Religion can inform morality, but morality may be found in conscience, common sense, nature, natural design and in the collective conscience of civilized people. Many laws have nothing to do with the Bible.

    Homosexual behavior is not natural behavior, and has no natural design or purpose. Twins studies confirm that homosexuality is not strictly genetic. Someone’s “right” to have consensual sex within the same gender and pursue their own definition of happiness is fine BUT it has absolutely nothing to do with the “right” to marry or the natural institution of marriage and its purpose!

    Stop blaming this issue on religion! The burden of proof is on you to explain why the government should be forced to recognize unnatural sexual relationships without any specific designed purpose and accord them the same rights and privileges or status of the natural heterosexual marriage which the government should protect and strengthen.

    Marriage is between men and women. 1 + 1 = 2. A circle is a circle and a square is a square. “Gay marriage” is oxymoron, and the attempt to re-define the institution of marriage to include same gender relationships as some kind of civil right or inalienable constitutional right is nothing more than political smoke and mirrors with no basis in fact or law.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s