While conservatives are battling homosexual rights activists over morals and traditions, the National Organization of Women (NOW) is preparing to celebrate a long-sought final victory over heterosexual marriage and single-mother poverty by creating the hyper-feminist family.
In the 1960s, the first wave of radical feminists convinced women that divorce was a better idea. Many women chucked those pesky husbands in droves and promptly ended up in poverty. To this day, experts estimate that at least two-thirds of divorces when there are minor children at home are desired by the woman and not the man.
The “Great Society” and subsequent iterations changed the welfare state to the “child support state” under a tremendous body of federal code. Despite welfare expenses larger than the national debt, we are still unable to make single-parent family economics viable. And social scientists now agree: the absence of the father at home is a strong correlate of juvenile delinquency.
The man-hating NOW has also wrestled desperately with the poverty problem it inflicted on women. Sometime in the early 1980s, core feminist strategists discovered an extremely attractive solution. Their unstated plan all along has been to reform welfare by creating the married two-mother hyper-feminist family.
What is a hyper-feminist family? It would consist of two mothers who have six sources of income — the incomes of two mothers, two sets of child support orders, and two sets of welfare entitlements. All they need is live-out boyfriends or divorced husbands for child creation and child support. It represents the left-wing dream of a free love, family-free society that has been in place since before Rousseau could finally be realized.
NOW knew it could not make this transformation of law if it demanded the right for any two women to marry. But gays and lesbians, as a new victim class, may be the vehicle for sneaking penultimate matriarchy into law.
The workings of NOW’s “Trojan Horse” can be found by extensive readings of radical feminist literature. In Sisterhood is Powerful (1970), Robin Morgan set forth the initial objective to deconstruct heterosexual marriage: “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” Once heterosexual marriage has been substantially destroyed, “Heather has two mommies” could become the generic slogan for reconstructing marriage along feminist lines.
In January, 1988, the National NOW Times published an edict instructing normal women to adopt gay marriage agenda: “The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.”
Same-sex marriage has been a very effective distraction preventing conservatives from engaging in the real civil war, which is over preserving the traditional family — already in big trouble due to no-fault divorce and cultural decadence long before the homosexual rights movement gained steam. While conservatives parry with gays over morals and family values, NOW is taking over marriage.
Same-sex marriage is unconstitutional as a civil rights issue when we draw from laws governing racial equality, women’s rights, and separation of church and state.
Marriage between men and women is an unfettered constitutional right because its equalizing power is fundamental to the success of the human race and society itself. This absolute right does not affect anyone adversely because it is totally inclusive of both sexes.
Brown v. Board of Education ruled that “separate is not equal” with respect to race and education. Subsequent rulings expanded Brown to cover many other areas of civil rights — such as interracial marriage — which additionally decreases racial segregation. Same-sex marriage goes against Brown because it allows women to segregate family and reproduction.
Since 1960, increases in crime, illegitimacy, poverty, personal bankruptcy, suicide, violence, truancy, and drug abuse paralleled the rise of the welfare state of the 1960s, migrating into the middle and upper classes with the “divorce revolution.” What was urban gang violence of the 1960s became school shootings in nice suburbs across America in the 1990s.
All projections aside, America must not make an irreversible decision allowing feminists — including men who are happy to avoid the responsibility of fatherhood — to make unconstitutional choices that would destroy society and heterosexual marriage forever.
Now here is the long-overdue civil-rights initiative conservatives have been waiting for which places gay marriage and many radical feminist issues in a losing position: We must now grant to fathers the same right to be in the family as we have granted to women in the workplace.