In comes as no surprise to me that columnist Richard Cohen doesn't think too highly of the "Manhattan Declaration". In a piece published in today's Washington Post Cohen attacks the declaration's condemnation of, so-called, "same sex marriage".
To Cohen, the issue is a matter of civil rights. He compares laws that prohibit "same sex marriage" to the laws that once prohibited interracial marriage.
As most of my readers know, I am married to a Filipina. Prior to the 1967 Supreme Court decision, Loving v. Virginia, she and I could not have married in the state of Georgia. Using Cohen's twisted logic, I should be empathetic towards gays wishing to marry.
He's wrong, of course.
Allow me to explain the difference.
The race-based restrictions on marriage were based on erroneous beliefs concerning the "racial superiority" of Caucasians over "non-whites". The ban on interracial marriages was based on the racist idea that children born of such a marriage would pollute the "white race".
Of course, we all know now that no race is superior or inferior to any other race. The children that come from interracial marriages are equal in every way to children coming from "same race" unions.
There never has been any legitimate reason to prohibit marriage between a man and woman of different races.
The same cannot be said about "marriages" between two men or two women. As much as some would wish it were otherwise, the ultimate biological and evolutionary purpose of sex is to reproduce the species. I know it isn't fashionable to say this, but sex is not about self expression. In this day of contraceptives and abortion-on-demand, people seem to have forgotten this basic biological fact.
Cohen and this writer believe that our objections to "same-sex marriage" are simply based on our misguided biblical interpretations.
Perhaps someone should explain the "birds and bees" to Mr. Cohen.
It's the biology, stupid.