Virginia: A recent ruling on same-sex marriage ignores the fundamentals of human sexuality.

Can judges redefine reality? In Virginia, yes.

by Robert R. Reilly

Denial of reality on the marriage issue is becoming almost impermeable. Self-reinforcing decisions from one federal court to another are weaving together a skein of an alternate reality in which we will all soon be required to participate.

It just hit Virginia, where I reside. On February 13, US District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen chose to disenfranchise the citizens of the Commonwealth by voiding that part of our constitution and those laws that define marriage as between one man and one woman as unconstitutional.

Inaptly, Judge Wright Allen began her decision by confusing the basic texts of the American Founding (since corrected). She apparently thought that the phrase that “all men are created equal” comes from the Constitution. It is, of course, perhaps the single most famous statement in the Declaration of Independence. Its author was Thomas Jefferson. Judge Wright Allen appeals to this principle to endorse same-sex marriage on behalf of two lesbian and homosexual couples, who brought suit against Virginia.

What might Thomas Jefferson have thought of this use of the meaning of equality? We can more than guess. In 1778, Jefferson introduced the Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishment, which proposed that “Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.”

We can safely conclude from this that Jefferson, who was actually trying to reduce the capital penalties for these crimes, would nonetheless not have endorsed same-sex marriage, the homosexual expression of which almost invariably involves sodomy.

Why might Jefferson have proposed this bill to penalize sodomy and why does Virginia have laws against same-sex marriage? One would have to conclude from Judge Wright Allen that it was from sheer prejudice and that only now has the light dawned upon the Court that this is unfair.


...................

Read more: www.mercatornet.com