Bloomberg News posted Greg Stohr’s article titled “Marriage Cases Thrust Supreme Court Into Gay-Rights Fight.”
"The justices are scheduled to confer privately on Nov. 30 on 10 pending appeals, including clashes over the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act, which blocks gays from receiving federal marriage benefits, and a California ballot measure that outlawed same-sex nuptials there in 2008. The high court may say as early as that afternoon which cases it will consider." [Emphasis added.]
Here’s the problem: DOMA does not block gays from receiving federal marriage benefits.
It’s easy to see why same sex marriage advocates frame the debate as a gay rights issue. Gays are a minority and Americans don’t want to discriminate against minorities.
But marriage licenses don’t ask about sexual orientation. It’s all about who is the bride and who is the groom. Every person with same sex attraction has a gender, and is therefore free to marry someone with a complementary gender in all 50 states. This may sound trivial, but it is a necessary distinction. There is a crucial difference between sexual orientation and gender.
It would be more accurate to call Bloomberg’s article: “Marriage Cases Thrust Supreme Court Into Gender-Rights Fight.”
Marriage is not just about sexual orientation; it is about uniting two genders and providing both a mother and a father for children.
In contrast, same sex marriage is inherently sexist. It either discriminates against women or men. It intentionally deprives children of either a mother or a father. It is either anti-male or anti-female. Call it anti-gender, for short.
Which is more important for marriage, for developing children, and for society? To keep marriage gender-integrated? Or to advance anti-gender marriage?
Will the Supreme Court uphold gender diversity in each marriage? Or decide that adults have the right to discriminate against gender in marriage?
Keep marriage pro-gender. Because gender matters to everyone, including those with same sex attraction.