President Barack Obama, in 2015, made a widely reported statement that "The legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives, you know, that casts a long shadow, and that's still part of our DNA that's passed on."  This was another bit of deconstructionist verbiage where DNA is used to suggest how deeply fixed racism is in the psyches of white persons, but at the same time, although the term is biological, it is intended as a metaphor for an historical process or condition.  What can whites do to change this?  Almost nothing.  Yet at the same time whites remain responsible and perpetually guilty for the difficulties that assail the members of the black community in the USA, individually and as a whole.  Thus racism is more than a weakness or tendency.  It is a permanent moral stain requiring permanent atonement. 

It consigns whites to the status of eternal penitents before a wronged party from whom forgiveness or absolution will never be forthcoming.  Nothing whites can do can satisfy the pain of the historical wrongdoings against black Americans, and a penalty must be exacted repeatedly ad infinitum.  Whites must continuously strive to expiate their sin, but the expiation process cannot be ended.  Racism is permanent. It is part of white DNA (almost literally, whether or not found by genome specialists or ancestors.com).  

However, this type of deconstruction of the meaning of a term whereby a biological trait is proclaimed as applying to a formerly sociological concept is reversed when it comes to the left's ideology of sexual identity. Thus the biological identity of sex has become very malleable.  In the new world order, "gender" replaces sex as the fundamental identity concept.  "Gender" releases the "free individual" from DNA's constraints.  The individual instead bases his or her identity on a different concept of identity.  Under this model, one "chooses" his or her gender.  Thus, I was not born a male, but I have chosen to be a male. I could have chosen to be a female, but, no, I chose to be a male.  Real DNA is, so to speak, deleted, diluted, or de-DNA-ized.  The scientific certainty of chromosomes is challenged by "free will."  I can be anything I want to be even though science defines me one way. The scientific way confirms thousands of years of history, mating, childbearing, and religious teachings that the traditional family is Almighty God's plan for planet Earth.  But the new version of the "democratic ideal" trumps all these categories.

So, follow this line of reasoning:  racism is so strong in whites they cannot freely step away from it; but the reality of DNA must give way, and will give way, before the transgender agenda.

Putting marriage under the microscope, we see a similar development.  For thousands of years, most of humanity has thought that the extended and/or nuclear heterosexual family is the basis for social stability, personal security, emotional and conjugal satisfaction, reproduction and child rearing, social order, and even the true basis for demonstrating and cultivating love.  Further, it was believed universally, and sanctified by most of the holy scriptures of the world, and particularly by the Old and New Testaments, that woman was made for man and man was made for woman.  Marriage has in addition been seen as a type of contract between two persons.  It is a contract solemnly made by public vows.  A vow is a promise.  Each says they will love, honor, and cherish the other until death causes them to depart. The vow is confirmed by the words "I do" or "I will." It is a promise between persons; but also a promise to the Creator by His creatures. Yet, recently, when this writer attended a wedding, the lady officiating asked the couple if they would love, honor, and cherish each other, and told them that if they agreed, they should answer, "I'll try." 

However, with no fault divorce, and promises made before a justice of the peace or some drive-in official in Nevada, the promises are more and more not worth the paper they are written on.  Thus, we see that the ages old rationale for marriage has become increasingly diluted over time. This dilution has led the way to the recent rejection of the heterosexual marriage reality as the rock bottom sina qua non of our culture. This dilution paved the way for the present horror of homosexual marriage.

According to many, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the institution of marriage is merely a reflection of historical prejudice against homosexuals. If we read Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, he expresses emphatically that while one may be free not to condone homosexual marriage, that disagreement may not stand as public policy. He does not understand that by accepting homosexual marriage he is actually rejecting heterosexual marriage. The sanctity and stability of marriage as an institution depends on its being the only legitimate basis for family. Sight is precious in part because we can only see with our eyes.  If a blind person goes to a movie, that in no way changes that it is only the sighted person who can see the movie. This applies even if the blind person says that he or she enjoyed the film immensely and that hearing it was equivalent to both hearing and seeing it.  If homosexual persons think they are married, they and all those who agree with them are suffering from a similar delusion.   

But for Justice Kennedy and others, the certitude that marriage is only for heterosexuals and the rationale that drives that certitude is merely a cover rationalization for deep-seated prejudice and malice towards homosexuals. In finding the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in 2013, Kennedy wrote "the purpose and effect [of DOMA] was to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity [i.e. homosexuals]."  Thus, by his twisted reasoning, any laws that defend real marriage are automatically demeaning and hurtful to gays. 

In matters of race, sexual identity, and marriage, we see a new set of definitions and a perverse new logic in play. If only these changes could be attributed to identity politics or to confusions of meaning there might be some credible hope that a change back could be effected. However, the debate parameters and the conclusions reached by many, like Kennedy, who are convinced of their rationality suggest to this writer an additional element – a strong delusion that has captured the thoughts of many of our liberal-minded fellow citizens.

As an interesting aside, this writer saw three police conversing and joking around at the entrance to a local highway.  Two were male and one was female. She was a slightly overweight woman about five feet two inches tall. She was laughing delightedly and her whole body was literally rocking and shaking with spasms of hilarity.  Sexual undertones and overtones were unmistakable as she was so excited and delighted to be with her tall, handsome male police co-workers.  But would she be able to subdue any criminal?  Would she be able to chase a criminal?  She is instead a happy product of our social policy of not demeaning women but instead insisting on their "right" to be included in the constabulary.

In the name of equality, non-discrimination, fairness, due process, and a host of other lofty concepts, society has begun to unravel.  Common sense, order, decency, moral values going back before Christianity and extending even to other non-Western societies are being rejected.   The chaos and doom that this foretells is beyond the human imagination.