(’76 Contributor) “The alleged right to same-sex marriage that the State claims the Plaintiffs are seeking is simply the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond,” wrote the judge.
“Both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage are therefore simply manifestations of one right—the right to marry—applied to people with different sexual identities.” “The Plaintiffs are seeking access to an existing right, not the declaration of a new right,” said the judge.
So in his Utah ruling last December, Federal Judge Robert Shelby creates, despite his words to the contrary, not only a new right, but the end of functional heterosexual behavior, identity and advocacy.
He relies on a foundation of marriage being solely a human choice, specifically excluding gender as a rational organizing principal or guide to marriage and the development of sexual identity.
How might this potentially harm children?
With extraordinarily rare exception in humans, gender is clearly defined, is visible and tactile in nature, and is identified in nearly every cell’s chromosome as either male or female. Gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgendered chromosomal identities do not exist, despite presumably having had the same time to develop as male and female markers.
Biology seems to identify gender as important to the efficient functioning of the human body, and despite efforts of Progressives to the contrary, scientists have determined treating female bodies the same as male bodies often produces inferior medical results. Gender matters in maintaining physical health.
Yet because of a judge’s declaration gender can no longer be considered to help define marriage. So gender logically should have no standing in the gender identification process, either.
How will the judge’s ruling affect the development of children whose guardians and caregivers are not allowed to support gender-based sexual identity development?
Use of the child’s body as a guide will be deemed ‘sex stereotyping’ and banned from public educational practices, with the gay marriage ruling as the foundation law preventing gender from influencing identity development, particularly with universal pre-kindergarten likely to become the law.
Without their own body as a rational guide, the child must depend on external influences and their own ‘virtual reality’ alone, while experiencing the complex process of dissociating themselves from their own body, or gender, almost certainly without the cognitive ability to understand the implications of decisions reached.
From a visual and tactile perspective alone, non-heterosexual identity and behaviors do not add to the clarity of sexual identity development of young children, but introduce confusion and doubt about sexual identity. Heterosexual identity and behavior provide taxonomic clarity and psychological support for their own body exploration.
Can toddlers really be expected to understand all the permutations of non-heterosexual identity during this critical period in which their sexual identity is understood to form, and determine their sexual identity for life, without consideration at all of their own body? This is irrational.
A society demanding genderless parenting in fact creates a childhood of unreasonable uncertainty, confusion, self-doubt and conflicting messages. This does not serve the best interests of the state.
If choosing which college to attend is traumatic for many eighteen year olds, how much more traumatic is the life-long decision of sexual identity forced on toddlers and young children without permission or support to use their gender as a reliable guide?
The judge’s ruling leads directly to this new world of unnecessarily gender-conflicted child development for many children.
Rather than helping children feel comfortable and accepted in their own gender, advocates of the judge’s ruling seek to create an environment of questioning likely to prolong and confuse the process of gender identity in children and teens.
In California genderless psychological care for children and teens is protected by law, while psychological care which supports gender-based sexual identity has been outlawed, irrationally, by a powerful political party, despite protests of non-religious psychological associations.
Further, could a parent be sued by a child or agency representing the child’s interests for raising the child in ways consistent with their gender, but without supporting genderless identity exploration?
The question is rational and not merely academic. Must children be raised in gender neutral ways or be liable of child abuse, possibly resulting in those children being removed from the home, if re-education of the parents is deemed ineffective?
Similarly, education that is public, one would rationally adduce, will be forced to provide at minimum restroom and shower facilities for students and staff based no longer on gender, but on sexual identity. This has already happened.
The Massachusetts Department of Education declared that “some students may feel uncomfortable sharing those facilities with a transgender student but this ‘‘discomfort is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student.’’ Re-educating heterosexual students is the sole remedy offered.
As long as unwanted sexual contact did not occur, Judge Shelby would be obligated to rule that no female would have a rational right to shower in that school’s facilities without the possibility of a male-gendered student at the time claiming a female sexual identity from simultaneously using those same facilities.
And with those rulings and guidance, the onus of being ‘different’ now shifts to gender-based people, portraying them as closed-minded simply because of their sexual orientation, behavior and advocacy: hetero-sexual.
Judge Shelby’s non-scientific ruling that in matters of marriage gender is disqualified, leading to the same disqualification of gender in state-sanctioned education about sexual identity, virtually requires other issues of sexual morality also will be deemed unconstitutional.
How could sex between a teacher and a thirteen year old boy be ruled illegal, if both enjoyed the encounter and both consented, and they created “an intimate and emotional bond”, the sole basis upon which Judge Shelby deems necessary for a marriage?
On what legal basis could she, or he, be sued by parents or the boy or an employing school district? Scout leaders, Catholic priests and youth group leaders previously convicted of child molestation would have standing to overturn their convictions, if they could demonstrate they in fact created “an intimate and emotional bond” with the young person, the primary foundation the judge uses to identify a state recognized marriage?
If a toddler is deemed competent to determine their own sexual identity without the help of gender-based parenting, how could a teenaged boy or girl be considered incompetent to make decisions about how they choose to act out that sexual identity, regardless of the well-documented lack of brain development in the area of executive functions of most teenagers?
But perhaps this test of what constitutes grounds for marriage, ‘an intimate and emotional bond’, does, in fact, not survive rational closer scrutiny. Let’s scrutinize it and see.
A government that will not balance its own budget, a Supreme Court with the Dred Scott decision in its background and a political party with Jim Crow laws in their not so distant past believe that genderless marriage and sexual identity development is in the best interest of society.
This ruling is about far more than just who can marry whom; it creates untenable childhood distress, sanctions predatory sexual relationships of adults with children and criminalizes heterosexual behavior, identity formation and advocacy.