Dumbest Pro- Prop 8 Argument?
I've written here before I've yet to hear one good argument against same- sex marriage- a possible exception being that some religious folks are worried their churches may be forced to perform same- sex marriages. This piece in Calwatchdog has to be the sorriest attempt to justify Prop 8 I've seen to date.
I've read it at least four times now and it just doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe it's just me? I'm surprised that all of the readers commenting say it makes complete sense and should be included in court arguments defending Prop 8.
I don't get it. The gist of the argument, as best I can tell, is that liberals should support Prop 8 because keeping marriage restricted to a man and woman protects women. The writer goes on to say that marriage came about historically to protect women from various threats. I think that's the first time I've read that.
Nowhere in the opinion, unless I missed something, did the writer explain how allowing two guys or two girls to get married threatens a guy and girl who want to get married since no one is suggesting that guy and girl can't still get married.
Nor do I understand, assuming that girl is getting married for some sort of protection, how a same- sex marriage would threaten that protection?
It seems to me this is an argument of desperation, if it's an argument at all.