Certainly I have made the argument many times, that adultery and divorce are bigger threats to marriage than two men or two women in love, but frankly it was rhetorical.

It is clear to me that if you put something stupid on the ballot, for instance an amendment that takes away rights, it just might pass, and that is determined not by what is right, but by who spends more money. Prop 8 was a perfect example of this.

I understand the argument presented above, and truly appreciate the aesthetics of it, but this would be a terrible thing to put on the ballot. It might pass. Any any diminution of rights is a bad thing. (Although, in this case it would be funny.)

The ballot is not the place to make rhetorical arguments. Eventually, we will achieve marriage equality, and then it will be someone else’s rights that are in danger, and we’ll fight again. As Pres. Jackson said, “Eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty.” He didn’t suggest playing roulette with people’s rights as a way to achieve the same end.