Gay Marriage Foes Should Face Logic

The national debate over same-sex marriage has been largely an uphill battle for its supporters. The arguments used against them by anti-gay marriage advocates are numerous, wildly divergent and largely immune to empirical support or rational discussion.
Between the charges that gay marriage would violate the fundamental tenets of Christianity (unlike the pious examples set by such renowned theologians as Ted Haggard), would somehow undermine the legitimacy and value of all existing heterosexual marriages (America’s high divorce rate would be explained if today’s marriages are really so fragile) and would allow children to be raised by irresponsible sexual deviants who don’t know the meaning of commitment (unlike twice-legally-married, twice-pregnant, twice-divorced Madonna-kisser Britney Spears), gay marriage advocates have been struggling to find ways to disprove arguments rooted in prejudice, lacking empirical or constitutional merit and containing more loopholes than an Orange County housewife’s pre-nup.
Thankfully, one of their latest setbacks has allowed them the opportunity to discredit a popular anti-gay-marriage argument