[Perkins] did suggest that over the last 40 years marriage has been “devalued,” and said there is abundant evidence to suggest public policy – such as no-fault divorce – “has truly impacted children and impacted the institution of marriage.
“And the judge in his ruling actually just ignored all of that and said there is no evidence that any of the policy that’s been adopted on no-fault divorce and other liberal-leaning policies has impacted marriage,” Perkins said. “I think anybody with a half a brain can see that the policies that have been adopted in the last 40 years have impacted marriage, and as a result have impacted the well-being of children.”
I should try getting a proposition passed to ban ugly marriages. Surely the state has a legitimate interest in keeping the hideous from going forth, not to mention multiplying, and I’m sure I could get at least 51% of voters to agree with me. Those who say that California’s gay-marriage ban should stand make a completely logical point: majority rule should always trump minority rights — activist judges and their equal protection clause be damned. I mean, what the unattractive do behind closed doors is O.K., I guess, but I don’t want to have to see it. And I certainly don’t want my tax dollars to promote the homely lifestyle.
Or should I just let them be? If two repellent people want to wake up next to each other every the morning for the rest of their lives, it might turn my stomach, but is it really any of my business? It must be hard enough for them to get through the day — there are reflective surfaces everywhere — without having the federal government against them. Allowing dog-faced marriage doesn’t mean I love my husband any less, and banning unsightly unions wouldn’t give me a better chance at till death do us part. So relax, ugly people; you’re free to pursue happiness with the appearance-challenged person of your choice. Love is love, after all, and that’s beautiful enough.
“Both sides fear this,” explained a senior Democrat. “(This) election is all about independents who are ambivalent on (certain social issues) right now.”
A veteran national Republican strategist agreed, saying, “It raises an issue (Republicans would) rather not have to deal with … (it’s) hard to walk to the line of opposing same sex-marriage and displaying enough tolerance to keep independents and Democrats comfortable enough to vote for you.”
Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, put it simply: “A modern party does not want a campaign that’s built around a crusade on gay rights. … it won’t work, for one thing, and for another, it’s so controversial that it would obscure the nonpartisan appeal of the economic issue.”