In response to your article, there is this entire field of study called anthropology.  I do so invite you to read their literature and then never, ever, at all write another fucking word you ignorant fuck.

Instead, we need to be thinking about marriage’s role in sustaining the existence of the human species. When we do that, we’ll see the fundamental wisdom of the decision of the majority of California voters.

No, we sure as hell won’t see the wisdom because marriage has had fuck nothing to do with the continued existence of the human species.  It has less to do with marriage than the, “exclusive benefit of couples in love, who wanted to share a life and a household,” that you claim the plaintiffs were suing for.  If you’d taken the time to ever read one iota of literature you’d realize that marriage has a whole hell of a lot more to do with treating women as property for economic and status reasons.  I do so invite you to read Toward an Anthropology of Women and write this horseshit again.  Ten minutes of historical research on google would tell you how absolutely stupid your assertion that marriage is important to the survival of the species is.

Now, I don’t pretend to be the smartest person ever, but I kind of think that there’s only one thing really key to the survival of a species, reproduction.  As for humans, that means popping out babies, and even the Palin’s prove you don’t need to be married to do that.

However, being that f’ing stupid wasn’t enough for you.  No, you just had to go and prove yourself an absolute horse’s ass.

Marriage is about defending women

As if the above literature wouldn’t have proved how absolutely insane that statement is, you decided to just contradict your own point:

Among the many different versions of marriage in human history, very few of them have supplied the high-minded qualities that the plaintiffs feel is their right. The vast majority of marriages in the past, perhaps a majority even now, were dictated by families, clans, holy men or magicians, and enforced on the bride and groom by social pressure, enforced if necessary with brutality and violence.

Right, because marriage has, traditionally, had fuck nothing to do with love or protecting women and a whole lot more with economics and patriarchal control. That’s what makes your entire article so asinine.

In primordial terms, marriage only exists at all – in all of its permutations, pleasant or barbaric – because of the nature of human heterosexuality.

Uh, no, not at all.  First of all your very consideration of what heterosexuality is permeated on western culture, which, well, happens to not be the dominate form of culture throughout history.  And, once again, economics, economics, economics.  How many times am I going to have to point out the economic component of marriage?  When people are arranging marriages for status reasons of children that haven’t even been born yet, you’re going to have a very hard time trying to convince me that, “we need to protect female sexuality in order to assure ourselves of a future.”

Marriage is a necessary defense of a woman’s sexuality and her human liberty from determined assault by men who would turn her into a slave, a concubine – something less than fully human.

Yeah, like how many cultures treated marriage to a high degree.  Instead of group assualt she had a dedicated assailant, her husband.

That’s why so many – even the most secular, gay-admiring, civil-rights-conscious among us – feel that something more is going on with the movement to turn marriage into a device to give couples self-esteeem – or, in Walker’s terms, status in society.

Having met some of the most secular, gay-admiring, civil-rights-conscious among us, I’d have to say, bullshit.  You can’t even read an anthropology book, don’t even pretend to know what the far left is thinking. As for status, again, consult a Marxist theorist.   They’ll give you a run down on marriage as a status symbol.

We are merely voicing a sensible desire to preserve an institution that recognizes and protects the special status of women.

How about we just pay women equal wages, promote better child-care legislation, work against patriarchal notions of society, and I don’t know, actually legislate for women’s rights.  You know, maybe that would help protect the “special” status of women.  Wait, by “special status” you mean “inferior and submissive to the authority of men,” don’t you?

Asshole.