First Published in the Richmond-Times Dispatch
Editor, Times-Dispatch:
Media coverage of same-sex marriage before the federal appeals panel reveals the inconsistencies in arguments attempting to overturn Virginia’s marriage law as between one man and one woman.
No one denies the right of homosexuals to marry. They have that right as anyone else. What is denied is the homosexual claim to a “right” to marry partners of the same sex. That is not supported by biology, natural law or millennia of civilized social order.
Contrary to Judge Gregory’s suggestion, the traditional definition of marriage was never at issue in Loving v. Virginia. Continuing claims to a similarity between Loving v. Virginia based on race and issues rightly in opposition to same-sex marriage are disinformation.
The Virginia anti-miscegenation laws of 1924 were evil because they were not predicated on natural law but in violation of it. Homosexual claims that discrimination is the basis for opposition to same-sex marriage are diversionary. Discrimination toward same-sex marriage is not operative here, natural law is.
Loving v. Virginia was waged to demolish the premise that blacks are inferior to whites. It fought to repeal the prohibitions to interracial marriage contrived to protect the illusory supremacy of the white race. Any other reading is artificial.
The Virginia marriage law is designed neither to protect nor harm individuals but to protect an institution. Judge Niemeyer is closer to the truth by asserting that what same-sex couples want is a “new relationship” that is not really akin to traditional marriage.
The “right” to same-sex marriage is an invention unsupported by nature.
Joe Rogowski. Henrico.
