In light of the sheer stupidity demonstrated within the comments during the Prop 8 trial, Jason Kuznicki wrote an interesting opinion piece, analyzing the arguments of same-sex marriage opponents:

For the opposition, possibly the strongest is the claim that children need a mother and a father, and that marriage is the institution that ties heterosexual sex to childbirth and parenting.

Clearly, that's one thing that marriage does, but it can't be the only purpose of the institution. If it were, we wouldn't let 80-year-olds get married, and if you've had a hysterectomy, then forget it. To complicate matters, gays and lesbians also raise children, and an institution that ties them to their kids, and that empowers them to raise their children responsibly, seems like a reasonable addition to the law.

He later concludes:

All of this brings up a strange inconsistency to the opponents of same-sex marriage. Their ends -- every child gets a mom and a dad -- are strangely mismatched to their means -- prohibit same-sex marriage. It's sort of like banning bad moustaches to stop pornography. Perhaps there's some vague association, but that's about it.

Same-sex marriage isn't nearly the root of the problem, and we all know it. If it's really so important that every child gets a mom and a dad, then there is an obvious policy solution: prohibit divorce after childbirth. Of course, divorced parents are numerous and politically powerful, and it's always easier to scapegoat a minority.

Why, oh why, can't the same-sex-marriage-will-ruin-society crazies understand such simple and undeniable logic?