Ethnicity vs. Homosexuality
From The Wittenberg Door archives . . .
HOUSTON — A judge in Texas paved the way for a court battle over the state’s ban on same-sex marriage when she ruled this week that two men married in another state can get divorced in Dallas.
Even more interesting than the claim that the greatest state in the Union is denying folks their “Constitutional right” to marry (and, it seems, to divorce) is the following:
“The bottom line is, just as in the ’50s, when the Supreme Court of the United States had enough guts to say no more on segregation, this present Supreme Court ought to do the same thing on this issue,” said Jonathan D. F. Nelson, a Fort Worth lawyer.
The idea expressed by the Stockyard pettifogger is apparently shared by the court: ethnicity and homosexuality are on the same moral plain. But are the gentlepersons of the law correct?
Ethnicity Equal to Homosexuality?
Captain Kangaroo’s ethnicity was white (caucasion). He was born that way and could do nothing to change it. His ethnicity was intrinsic to him. Consequently he had no choice in the matter. Those with homosexual desires, on the other hand, have a choice as to whether or not to act upon those desires. The latter is morally relevant, while the former is not. Thus ethnicity and homosexuality are not on the same moral plain (one involves choice and the other does not—one is intrinsic and the other a behavior). And since the state should only treat equals equally, it is in fact immoral to judicially conflate the two.
The State’s only interest in marriage is that it is the best way for it, the State, to perpetuate itself. Mommies and daddies are from where the next generation of citizens will come. And the best environment for the raising of responsible citizens is a married, monogamist, heterosexual household. Married and monogamist because that brings stability to the home; heterosexual because both the mother and the father bring something in particular to the childrearing enterprise.
This unit is the best way to secure society’s future. Therefore, the State has an interest in favoring and protecting marriage between a man and a woman. It has no such interest in same-sex unions—I bet even Mr. Green Jeans understood this.