On her daily radio commentary yesterday, Linda Harvey offered a rather interesting theory about why the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" shouldn't apply to marriage equality - or seemingly to gay people at all, for that matter - since "people are not naturally homosexual."
Apparently, being a "gay person" doesn't actually qualify one as a "person" under Harvey's understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment:
Why should the equal protection argument be made in favor of homosexual behavior, which is changeable? People are not naturally homosexual, so the definition of "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment is being twisted to make this assumption.
"Person" should be understood based on historic, beneficial, or at least neutral and fact-based traits; it should not be twisted to incorporate behavior that most religions and most cultures have said a firm "no" to.
It's also behavior for which there's no recognized science demonstrating a genetic or hormonal origin. And it's also not beneficial and does not stand the definition of marriage, used for millenia - that is, the act of consummation. It's another sad fact of homosexual behavior that two men or two women can never consummate a marriage; they can never conceive children together.
This should still have some standing and it remains a fact that there are only two types of human in the world: male and female. Any other distinctions made are appearance, custom, and construction. So marriage is the lawful, orderly confirmation of what we already see in nature.
The Supreme Court says they will give their decision in June. Pray, friends, for truth to prevail.
