One of the biggest lies opponents of marriage equality tell themselves and the public is that their substantive arguments are rock solid and that people, wither willfully or ignorantly, misunderstand their arguments and therefore do nothing but unjustly call them hateful bigots.
That's why, whenever the substantive arguments of equality opponents get the smackdown in the public square and, specifically, in courts, it's always with much schadenfreude that I observe it. I refer today, most recently, of Republican-appointed Judge Richard Posner's, of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, questioning of the attorneys for Indiana and Wisconsin, who are defending their states' bans on same-sex marriage - via Slate, and 7th Circuit website. (See also Freedom to Marry, for more background on the case).
Many "marriage defenders" believe, especially when couched in people like prominent conservative "Robbie" George's intellectual-speak, that the purpose of marriage is responsible procreation - that is, they believe that marriage exists to (and because) heterosexual sex can result in babies and therefore heterosexuals need their own institution.
Yet, when conversation with "marriage defenders" becomes a dialogue or a line of questioning, rather than a monologue where this "truth" is dictated to us from them (or "God"), two things becomes readily apparent. The first is that, when they're not actually outright explicitly hating on LGBT people and same-sex couples, they actually don't think much about us and our needs to protect our families at all. When questioned about the needs of our families, they callously show that they haven't sincerely considered the harmful impact their advocacy has on us, or the way their staunch advocacy contributes to more explicit hatred of LGBT people, or what protections, if any, we should have if not marriage.
Two, the conversations show the irrationality and weaknesses of this purportedly "civil" "definitely not bigoted" "responsible procreation" argument, from a substantive standpoint. I've had these conversations, like many advocates of equality have, over and over and over again.
Any bigot can engage in Internet debate and do a touchdown dance declaring hirself the "winner." I've seen it happen a zillion times. The writers at the single-issue bigot blog Opine Editorials, for instance, used to regularly declare themselves "the best" and "undefeated" at debate about the issue - indeed, they were so confident in their position and writing about the evils of same-sex marriage that they inexplicably shut down and deleted their entire blog awhile back.
Thus, it's refreshing, and extremely validating, that those with more power to declare intellectual and legal winners in the public sphere - such as judges - agree that "marriage defense" arguments lack rationality.
I LOVE seeing "marriage defenders" stammer, unable to adequately answer a judge's simple questions about the very crux of their position, and the exceptions they, for instance, create that allow sterile heterosexuals to marry but not same-sex couples if, after all, marriage is all about the babies. I LOVE seeing judges tell them that they must answer certain questions - no evasions allowed, no really- we'll all wait. I LOVE when so-called experts in this debate are declared by courts to not actually be experts at all - because oftentimes, they're not.
The "marriage defense" movement in the US is best characterized by hunches, lazy appeals to what they call "common sense," and a buncha people who are hyper-concerned with, first and foremost, whether or not people think they're bigots.
History will show equality advocates to be winners for these reasons, not because of some invented figment-of-their-imagination "PC gone awry" society.