[adpiucf]

The argument in support of prop 8 is best summarized by directing quoting today's oral arguments: "The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it 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."

Translation: the reason to deny same-sex marriage is because marriage is solely for child-rearing and to allow same-sex marriage means that the purpose of marriage is for adult companionship.

There is an implicit logical assumption that if the purpose of marriage is solely procreative, then Prop 8 proponents would argue that someone who does not want or cannot have children because of age, medical, financial, or personal reasons should be denied the right to marry.

I would also like to point out that California, where Prop 8 originated, is a state that allows gays to adopt. And their strongest argument against allowing gay parents to marry is because "[t]he Plaintiffs' expert acknowledged that redefining marriage will have real-world consequences, and that it is 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."

Translation: We don't know if anything bad could come of it, but we shouldn't do it because maybe something bad would come of it."

I look forward to hearing SCOTUS' opinion on this. I am guessing they won't rule until the end of May/June.