By Don Zimmerman
Texas Insider Report: AUSTIN, Texas – Progressives cleverly misappropriate the civil rights argument to sexual preference, knowing they can demand civil rights remedies like quotas for hiring and adoptions that give preference to SSM couples. The argument for the oxymoronic “Same Sex Marriage” (SSM) is a stool with two flimsy legs.
- One, that homosexual couples are victims of outdated morals and arbitrary discrimination.
- Two, that “married” homosexual couples would provide general benefits for all.
First, homosexual relationships are not modern! Even a cursory examination of homosexuality origins brings you to the Cretans of 1650 B.C., who, having moved far beyond today’s gay-rights progressives, celebrated the practice of harpagmos – the ritual kidnapping of a noble boy by an adult male of the aristocratic class.
Unlike some of Jerry Sandusky’s victims, the Cretan boys were believed to be pubescent (teenage), having a father’s consent, and having some conditions for refusing the adult male’s advances. In any case, cultural and legislative acceptance of homosexual partnerships isn’t recent – it’s ancient!
Todays’ Democrats should at least privately admit such harpagmos as progressive, since it would end another discriminatory barrier to “having sex with the one you love” – a barrier the rest of us call the “age of consent”. Today’s Republicans might also consider – as GOP Senators newly consent to SSM, that ancient homosexual practices could be 
couched as conserving tradition.
But what’s really at stake in the SSM controversy isn’t just tradition or morals – it’s law – and government’s role to define and enforce it. Remember, political legislation we’re expected to respect as law doesn’t just qualify what is moral, it even quantifies immorality – the breaking of the law – as misdemeanor or felony with fine or prison sentence.
- Is SSM a right, “endowed by our Creator”, or a political campaign intended to defy the Creator’s law with political morality?
- If SSM is truly a “right”, what quantity of punishment should be imposed on those who refuse to recognize it?
Much comparison between interracial marriage discrimination and SSM is made; this equates the newborn infant’s unchosen skin color with the sexual choice of an adult. Even if diligent research convincingly proves a DNA link to homosexual urges – the “I was born with it” argument, must legislation also be rewritten if we discover DNA links to urges for sexual assault and business fraud?
Did civil rights pioneers fight for only blacks to intermarry, but not Hispanics or Asians?
If the SSM principle really is discrimination, progressives should battle against opposite sex marriage discrimination – but in fact we hear no objection to laws prohibiting brother and sister, or mother and son, from being married to have a 
“stable, loving family”. Some cite health reasons for offspring as justifying discrimination against opposite sex marriages – so why isn’t adoption for such couples also promoted by the SSM lobby?
The “immoral discrimination” argument for SSM appears disingenuous.
Second, it’s obvious that homosexual couples can’t produce children because of natural law; a wise heterosexual couple could seek medical treatment for infertility, while only a foolish SSM couple would. The authority and responsibility for raising children – the basis of human continuity – now rests with married parents who literally produce them.
Progressives will surely demand adoption quotas of other people’s children for SSM couples, shifting original parental authority to bureaucrats and politicians. Besides the loss of unique gender nurturing of father and mother in a child’s life, what other effect would same-sex couples have on young children?
“Modeling” – teaching by example in a young child’s life, would necessarily lead youth to favorable views of the homosexual lifestyle (“honor thy ‘father’ and ‘mother’ ”), which logically leads to more experimentation of the same. As the Centers for Disease Control (CDC, 2011) reports, homosexual students are more inclined than heterosexual ones to abuse tobacco and other drugs, and practice suicidal behaviors. Consequently, an unintended consequence of SSM with adopted kids is increased health risks for kids – unless “do as I say, not as I do” arguments work better in the SSM household, if those arguments are made at all.
Finally, the “heart” question is this – can the best SSM couple raise someone else’s child as well as the best heterosexual married couple can raise their own? Absolutely not!
But the SSM political campaign says, absolutely so – and you’re a hateful intolerant bigot if you disagree!
SSM proponents further believe five Supreme Court judicial opinions are sufficient to overturn natural law with political legislation. But the final question is this: if Americans don’t have the integrity to defend natural law, why should nature’s God defend America?
Don Zimmerman is a 5th generation, native Texan born and raised in San Antonio. As president of his Utility District (2002-2010) just north of Austin, Texas, he spearheaded successful legal challenges which were won at the Texas Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court. Zimmerman resides in Austin, Texas with his wife & daughter.
