www.Prop8Case.com

Live Blog Archive

Procreation: Post Hoc Rationalization?

Posted by Maggie on Wednesday, June 16th at 1:44pm

Share |

On kids need a mom and dad point:

Ted Olson argued that defendants are changing the subject, bringing post hoc rationalizations in making this case.

Chuck Cooper points to much, much evidence that people DID make this argument (I know I did, I never attended a single meeting in California for Prop 8 in which this wasn’t one of the main points raised.)  Voter guide raised it.  Op-eds raised it. 

Cooper goes on: “This was a frequent theme in the religious communities that were active in Prop 8 and the campaign wasn’t just what Protect Marriage had to say, it was a cacophony of debate ranging from the TV ads to conversations at the office water cooler. People debated this issue in every venue and every forum in civic centers, it was a cacophony and one doesn’t have to pinpoint a particular argument that virtually any argument was being advanced by these very passionate debates."

Comments

ChristaJeanne
June 16, 2010
3:24 pm

Oh, for sure this was an argument made over and over again at the time!!! We sure did at http://preservingmarriage.blogspot.com! That was one of the fundamentals to why SSM isn't the same thing.

John K. Noe
June 16, 2010
5:21 pm

Yes the argument for children is valid. Any advanced society would have laws that pertain to protect and decide what is best for our children. Children do matter. They cannot vote. Therefore it is a duty of the people of any society to pass laws that would be in the best interest of their children. Cooper is complaining about this. Since when was it wrong for a society to decide what was best for its children.

Add Your Comment Here

Please enter the word you see in the image below:




Watch in High Quality and Chat Live