The state of Utah’s latest arguments to the Supreme Court in favor of marriage inequality is that the state is supporting diversity, just like affirmative action or something:
Society has long recognized that diversity in education brings a host of benefits to students. If that is true in education, why not in parenting? At a minimum, the State and its people could rationally conclude that gender diversity — i.e., complementarity — in parenting is likely to be beneficial to children. And the state and its people could therefore rationally decide to encourage such diversity by limiting the coveted status of ‘marriage’ to man-woman unions.The state doesn’t explain what gender diversity in parenting actually means, and should be made to explain its “Men do parenting like this, but women do parenting like this” argument in excruciating detail. As I’ve said before, homophobia is basically a subset of sexism.