that woman's an idiot. she used three basic tactical approaches to the whole argument: that this is all a 'radical social experiment,' that this is not a numbers game of polls, and that it IS a numbers game in legislature- which ultimately depends upon public opinion. well, defense number one is just unfounded, sounds ignorantly paranoid, and i'm not even sure what it means. you'd think it'd be easy to shoot that argument down in a debate as being unfounded and stupid. opinion number two is true enough- civil rights should NEVER be a majority vote issue- so she shoots herself in the foot by saying that. opinion number three contradicts the second one by saying that obama needs the support of the people to do this, which she doesn't think he'll get, citing the california prop 8 as a precedent, which is stupid since that's a totally different issue. so essentially, she's spouting irrationally paranoid opinions instead of facts and is stumbling all over herself throughout.
the other thing i noticed is that these conservative groups seem to (in their own minds) revolve around this idea of the 'preservation of family.' which is the most pompous and asinine thing i've heard, because it presumes that they're the only ones who know how to create and maintain a healthy family (this is just not the case), that their family values are more valid or 'right' than those of others, and it implies overtly that gays undermine the whole thing, which it doesn't. they're rallying behind a push for separation, division, and the meticulous nit-picking of human differences. we rally behind the ultimate power of love. which sounds healthier for a family?
why aren't we naming our groups the same thing they are, in parody? the 'LGBT preservation of family unity organization' or something? then we're fighting for the same thing they are, but from a superior vantage- makes them look even worse.