Remember when Black people couldn’t marry White people?
Remember when Men could marry your sister?
Remember when Men could marry 12-year-olds?
Remember how allowing interracial marriage and stopping child rape “redefined marriage”?
And anti-Marriage Equality people are worried about Gays marrying… wait for it… other Gays?
Why is that?
Marriage is a scheme that institutionalizes Male power over Women.
Could it be that anti-Marriage Equality people are actually concerned that Marriage Equality undermines Male power? I mean, it cannot really be “about the children,” since these same people do not support social programs that would actually help children, particularly those living in poverty?
Here is the Heritage Foundation on Radical Feminist opposition to Marriage. The Heritage Foundation sounds much like Transgender Advocates in how it frames Radical Feminist analysis opposing marriage.
This is not a coincidence.
Marriage is good for men, women, children–and society. Because of this simple fact, President George W. Bush has proposed a new pilot program to promote healthy marriage. Despite demonstrated evidence in every major social policy area of the need to rebuild a strong and healthy culture of marriage, President Bush’s new marriage initiative is still opposed by the extreme wing of feminism that sees no good in marriage or in unity between men and women, and between mothers and fathers. Moderate, mainstream feminists have long rejected this animus against marriage; the vast majority of such feminists either are married or intend to marry. Mainstream feminists are focused on a worthy concern: removing obstacles to the advancement of women in all walks of life.
Radical feminists, however, while embracing this mainstream goal–even hiding behind it–go much further: They seek to undermine the nuclear family of married father, mother, and children, which they label the “patriarchal family.” As feminist leader Betty Friedan has warned, this anti-marriage agenda places radical feminists profoundly at odds with the family aspirations of mainstream feminists and most other American women.
Although radical feminists often claim that their opposition to the President’s healthy marriage initiative is a matter of efficiency or program details, it is in fact rooted in a long-term philosophical hostility to the institution of marriage itself. The Washington Post underscored this point in an April 2002 editorial, stating that the unwarranted animosity to the President’s policy grew out of “reflexive hostility” and the “tired ideology” of “the feminist left.” Decision-makers in Congress should not allow the badly needed initiative to strengthen healthy marriage to be blocked by organizations, such as the NOW Legal Defense Fund, that are still wedded to the “tired ideology” of the radical feminist past.
Marriage Equality undermines the Patriarchal Family, particularly when it involves two Lesbians. Redefining marriage to kick The Man out of it can only benefit Women, as it expands our options for protecting our families and, indeed, our choices for who we love.
This is a Good Thing. It’s not a Perfect Thing, granted. But viewed as a step on the journey towards ending marriage “as we know it” altogether, it’s not half bad!