What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?
This is a remarkable article containing what is tantamount to an admission in open court that Prop 8 supporters do not believe their own rhetoric, in fact do not even understand it well enough to be able to analyze it and anticipate challenges.
You know, the sort of thing they teach the first day in debate class or rhetoric class in high school.
Either that, or no savvy lawyers are willing and available to represent their case.
The quotes from Any Pugno at the end, a Prop 8 supporter are pugnacious an repugnant. As you read them, substitute “slavery” for “same sex marriage” and see if his thoughts make any sense at all.
… Read the rest
October 14, 2009
By LISA LEFF
Associated Press Writer
A federal judge challenged the backers of California’s voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday to explain how allowing gay couples to wed threatens conventional unions, a demand that prompted their lawyer to acknowledge he did not know.
The unusual exchange between U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker and Charles Cooper, a lawyer for the group that sponsored Proposition 8, came during a hearing on a lawsuit challenging the measure as discriminatory under the U.S. Constitution.
Cooper had asked Walker to throw out the suit or make it more difficult for those civil rights claims to prevail.
The judge not only refused but signaled that when the case goes to trial in January, he expects Cooper and his legal team to present evidence showing that male-female marriages would be undermined if same-sex marriages were legal.
The question is relevant to the assertion by gay marriage opponents that Proposition 8 is constitutionally valid because it furthers the state’s goal of fostering “naturally procreative relationships,” Walker explained.