On August 4, 2010, 9th Circuit Court Justice Vaughn Walker, in his imminent wisdom, ruled that the traditional definition of marriage “enshrines ... a gender restriction that the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.”
So the biological fact, true since the beginning of time, that mothers and fathers play distinct roles in the lives of their children is an “artifact of a foregone notion.”
Insofar as the law draws lines between men and women, it does so because of the lines the prevailing culture draws between men and women. Those cultural lines are the evolution of an immutable biological fact: men and women are different, and they will always be different.
To feminists, however, “gender,” like religion, is a bourgeois tool to keep the poor and underprivileged in their place. “Gender” specifically is a male fabrication designed to repress and dominate women. Thus feminists fool themselves into thinking “liberation” from gender norms is a just cause, and those who oppose them are backward and discriminatory (as if discriminating truth from falsehood is a bad thing).
If men and women really are the same, and the complementary nature of heterosexual marriage is an illusion, why should two genderless legal guardians be preferable to three? Or four? Or five? Would not the eradication of dual parentage in favor of the maximum number of legal guardians be the genderless ideal? I think so.
Even if it were possible to take from men what makes them men, and take from women what makes them women, what you’d be left with is a nullity, where beforehand there was verve and zest, in both.
Further reading: Albert Mohler’s “The Myth of the Genderless Baby” and “Rhode Island school says dad-daughter dances violate law.”