Is Sexual Preference Comparable To Race?

In an opinion, setting aside as unconstitutional, California's referendum against gay marriage, Proposition 8, District Judge Vaughn Walker pointed to "race restrictions on marital partners," asserting that while "common in most states (it is) now seen as archaic . . ." 

While this is true, he leaves out the critical fact that the races have mixed in marriage long before Moses married an African woman.  In contrast, there is no historical reference for same-sex marriage.  As a matter of fact, the first nation to recognize same sex marriage, did so less than ten years ago.

When race restrictions were removed from marriage, nothing more had to be done; but when same sex marriage comes into being, there is much to be done.  We will have to determine what the marriage vows will become; how homosexuals and their children will inherit when there is no will; what same sex partners will be called; how consummation of homosexual relationships will be described; if a homosexual partner repudiates homosexuality, will a homosexual union remain valid; how homosexuals will be provided with children; how the relationship between homosexuals and children who enter their family unit will be defined . . .  In addition, we need to learn the effect on children of exclusion from two gender family units, lack of exposure to progeny producing behaviors, and the absence of, at least one, biological parent. Finally, when all of that, and things not thought of, are sorted out, marriage will have to be redefined, and people, including children, will have to be re-educated about a new definition of marriage.  To some extent, the homosexual community  knows this, which is why they advocate sex education curriculum, that includes standard homosexual practices, like anal and oral sex.

Judge Walker went on to say that "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage," when the truth is that gender continues to be an essential part of marriage since, the most significant feature of marriage is the production and protection of children, and that can only be accomplished when the genders, a male and a female, procreate.  He concluded that "marriage under law is a union of equals."  While that is the case sometime, it has always been the case that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Homosexuals are entitled to protect their relationships as completely as heterosexuals protect theirs, but marriage should not be changed to accomplish that.  There is something to be said for accepting, and accommodating differences.

Race restrictions on marriage sought to keep people apart; gender restrictions on marriage seek to preserve the institution of marriage as we know it.  The "who can marry issue," is not about love.  Men have loved men, and women have loved women, since the beginning of time.  It is about protecting two types of committed sexual relationships, one that has a tradition that includes the expectation of procreation; another that is evolving, and that requires social transactions to acquire children; homosexuals need to accept the challenge, to create an institution, that will protect their unique relationships.