Anti-gay marriage attorney: Marriage is not about people’s emotional needs

According to an attorney defending Proposition 8 before the Supreme Court, gay marriage is bad because gays can’t procreate. Therefore allowing gay marriage will “refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples.”
All I can say is, I hope the anti-gay movement doesn’t take this up as its new battle cry, because if people realize liberals want marriage to meet people’s emotional needs, well, we can’t possibly win, can we? Concern trolling? Me? Don’t be silly.
Equally amusing, the same attorney also argued that “it’s impossible for anyone to foresee the future accurately enough to know exactly what those real-world consequences would be. And among those real-world consequences, Your Honor, we would suggest are adverse consequences.” So he can’t say what’s going to happen, but in his heart, he knows it’s bad. Not the first time that argument has been made: One anti-gay activist a while back (I can’t find the link, alas) argued that of course gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage. Okay, no harm yet … but someday something bad will happen!
On the positive side, anti-Prop 8 attorney Theodore Olson explains why the marriage label is important thusly: “It is like you were to say you can vote, you can travel, but you may not be a citizen. There are certain labels in this country that are very, very critical. You could have said in the Loving case, what — you can’t get married, but you can have an interracial union. Everyone would know that that was wrong,””
•LGM also links to several discussions of the first day’s analysis. Speculation is that the Court will probably find some grounds to avoid deciding.
•A Salon argument dissects the slippery slope claim that legalizing homosexuality leads inevitably to polygamy, incest and beastiality, as in the classic argument “Well, if the government can say it’s okay to marry a person of the same sex, why can’t it say it’s okay to marry your dog?” But I could make the same argument back: “If the government can approve you marring a person of the opposite sex, why can’t it approve you marrying a dog?” Necrophilia is legal in most states, but that has nothing to do with whether or not they approve gay marriage.
•Megan McArdle has a fresh take: Legalizing gay marriage is a triumph for conservatives! Married people frown on promiscuous sex and irresponsible partying so the more people get married, the more likely the sexual revolution will die forever! Her arguments are gleefully tracked in comments at the link (which is not direct). Bonus mockery, she actually states “predictions are hard, especially about the future.”
•Speaking of McArdle, here’s an old one of hers in which she informs people who predicted the disaster of the Iraq War that criticizing her—er, war supporters in general—only makes the anti-wars look bad. She also talks about how “both sides” are guilty of focusing on attacking the other instead of finding the right answer. Um, no, Ms. McArdle, the anti-war side did have the right answer.
•A while back I linked to a discussion of Todd Kincannon, a Repub in South Carolina who tweeted about how Trayvon Martin would only have grown up to be a gay whore druggie if he’d reached adulthood. He also hopes American soldiers die for having the wrong political opinion (“Shame you didn’t come home in a body bag.”). More here and here.
This isn’t that surprising. Repubs talk about supporting soldiers, but that only applies as long as they hew the party line, support the war or stand around as props for presidential speeches. They despised anti-war veterans during Vietnam, and today they routinely slime soldiers who run for office or fail to loyally support the right. That being said, actually wishing the soldier would die? Kincannon’s a scumbag (ditto for the Trayvon Martin tweets too).