Misogyny is entrenched in both the Protestant and Catholic forms of conservative Christian faith. Indeed, the Catholic Church remains a fully misogynistic force, committed to the inferiority of women the world over. The conservative branches of the Presbyterian church trust women so little that they’re often not even allowed to teach Sunday School without their husbands present. Part of the reason conservative Christians are so fervently opposed to marriage equality is that, even though women gained equal status in marriage years ago, for the law to unequivocally state that the genders of two people making a marriage contract are irrelevant makes it all the more difficult for them to propagate in their own homes and communities that women are best served when they’re subservient. The current state of this country’s financial affairs is also doing its part in making their lives difficult, but that’s another story.

If you’ve ever been to a conservative church, you might have heard a long-drawn out sermon about how Paul’s words in the Bible about women’s subservience are actually the BEST thing for a woman, because they ALSO specify that the husband is to look after her needs above all else. It might not even sound evil, until you realize that they’re simply putting a new coat of paint on the idea that The Man Is In Control, Period, End of Story.

And what happens when women don’t know their place? Well, they just might end up using their silly emotion-based “reasoning” to weaken their otherwise studly, steadfast, righteous penis-having husbands, that’s what!

I bring this all up because the National Organization for Marriage, the front group for the officially misogynistic Catholic Church, has suddenly come up with a new reason why Ted Olson supports marriage equality: Why, it was that liberal bitch wife of his!

How did Mr. Federalist Society decide it’s okay to use the U.S. Constitution to require gay marriage? The New York Times is reporting that his new young Democrat wife may be a key reason.

The NOM writer then links to a piece from Ed Whelan at the National Review, wherein he quotes an article from The New York Times:

“Lady could not have been more supportive of this,” Mr. Olson said in an interview shortly before Vaughn R. Walker, chief judge of the United States District Court hearing the case, ruled on Aug. 4 that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. “And she’s certainly influenced my views — her ideas, her approach, her feelings.”

When Mr. Olson teamed with Mr. Boise in 2009, much of the politerati was shocked to hear that the conservative stalwart was working alongside his former rival in Bush v. Gore, to defend the right of gays to marry. In fact, supporters of Proposition 8 had themselves tentatively approached Mr. Olson about arguing their side of the case.

But his wife said that anyone who knows him well — not to mention anyone who knows her at all — understands that for Mr. Olson and his fierce libertarian streak, gay marriage was an issue “of right and wrong, justice and injustice, and discrimination is something that offends at any time.”

“He would have never been able to take the other side,” she said, before adding with a laugh, “He wouldn’t have had a wife after that!”

She continued: “After eight years of knowing Ted, I thought this is something I can jump into with two feet, really sink my teeth into, and we can do this together.”

Whelan ends by essentially saying, “No comment.”

Whether Ted Olson’s wife has indeed influenced his views is immaterial. The significant thing here is the sneering tone that NOM and Ed Whelan take toward the concept of a woman influencing her husband’s views. Do the Olsons not know that the Haver of Woman Parts is supposed to shut her mouth and let her husband navigate all things involving thinking, morals and principles? Do they not know that if she is allowed to talk enough, she could unleash a disaster of epic proportions on the country? Although these principles might work in special cases in certain families where the female spouse is clearly insane — perhaps if Maggie Gallagher’s husband took a more dominant role in their household, for instance — they are, across the board, asinine principles, implying as they so clearly do that women should be seen and clearly not heard.

Always remember, when you watch anti-gay folks arguing, to look for the signs of their continuing support for the repression of women.  They are always there, lurking just slightly under the surface.  One of the most common examples, and it happens every election cycle, is when conservative Republican men sneer resentfully about the fact that women, across the board, lean far more Democratic than men do.  This reinforces their (hilariously stupid) belief that conservative men are the most mature members of society, and that the rest of us need their holy guidance.

Thanks, but we’ll pass.

[h/t Kyle]