Re: The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage. Or How Rick Moran is Destroying America

VeteransAbroad — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 07:49:30 -0000

Another angle that is NOT being discussed is that, when you focus on narrow issues like gay marriage, you tend to purposefully ignore bigger issues on marriage, eg that marriage is being destroyed by victim feminists (think Tahirih Justice Center) and their female fellow travelers in the Republican Party who don't understand that smart men will only consider marriage when laws like the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) are finally overturned in their entirety for being unconstitutional even in its very name not to mention that violence that does not involve inter-state travel is not a federal issue.

VAWA enables women to benefit financially and obtain US citizenship by falsely accusing US husbands of abuse (VAWA states that the man's testimony, evidence and witnesses are not needed to determine whether abuse took place). A part of VAWA, IMBRA states that socalled "Marriage Brokers" are intrinsically evil and need to be regulated (by forcing US men -but not non-US men - to be background checked to say hello to foreign women online) while erotic dating sites go unregulated of course (men who seek quick sexual partners online are not seen by liberal feminists to be as awful as men who might want to marry a Russian woman).

Male Republican politicians sit scared on the sidelines while victim feminists punish men via VAWA for having gotten married or for wanting to get married on a marriage-oriented website instead of a sex-oriented website. Female Republican politiicians probably just laugh at how they and their sisters have taken over both parties in the US. Witness Sarah Palin accepting an endorsement from the LA Chapter of the NOW at a rally in October.

Another threat to marriage is Alimony: Why does the Republican Party sit idly by while men lose hundreds of $millions to liberal judges who think a woman deserves to be paid for the trauma of having to have been married to a male = jerk? The anti-male comments always fly when a woman wants to take a rich man to the cleaners just because he had a fling with his secretary or, in Mel Gibson's case, with a Russian pop singer. Right wingers fall in line with left wing feminists to hate men on this subject. Why? Because old insecure women now control the Republican Party.

So where sleeping with your secretary should not be the business of government (even if you are using your government office desk during lunch time), the government now considers itself to the avenger of all married women whose husbands cheated on them (heck, the above mentioned IMBRA law makes it illegal for a married man to meet a Russian woman online). The Republican Party went down the wrong rabbit hole with all that Monica Lewinsky nonsense - men hated Clinton for considering Monica his only constituent, not for cheating on his sham marriage.

Then there is the idea that, if a poor woman uses a needle hole in a condom to trick a rich man into getting her pregnant...he needs to face "individual responsiblity for his actions" and pay excessive child support that is dependent on his income and ruinous for rich or upper middle class men. Republicans will be the first to hate the man for having exploited the poor woman sexually with no intent to marry and have children. Hatred for men who practice premarital sex is not going to get the Republican Party anywhere with the men of a new generation and it is a downright stupid argument in favor of marriage to say that men who play the field a bit first need to be punished for that. Never mind that Roe vs Wade gives women the right to deny motherhood in the first 3 months of a pregnancy (Roe vs Wade does not grant any rights after 3 months by the way, it was the Bolton case that the Right to Life crowd need to be yelling about - but they don't want to ever lose their place in the limelight by ever solving the abortion problem). The best way to stop Roe vs Wade is to ask that it extend the right to deny fatherhood to males or be declared unconstitutional for being sexist.

The federal government needs to stay out of marriage entirely except to stop the states from taking men's rights away by pandering to feminists and older insecure women who want legal poison pills or laws like IMBRA to prevent their husbands from leaving them.

Concentrating on gay marriage allows everyone to conveniently ignore the growing big government intrusiveness in heterosexual marriage. One might wonder if this is all on purpose...that both sides have agreed to loudly disagree on gay marriage for that reason.

Disqus - Latest Comments for VeteransAbroad

Re: The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage. Or How Rick Moran is Destroying America