Via Box Turtle Bulletin…  Karen Klien of the L.A. Times editorial board writes of meeting with the Proposition Eight supporters…

Behind the gay-marriage talk

The Times editorial board formulates its positions on ballot measures not only by research, but by inviting representatives of both sides to (separate) meetings with the board. It’s a good forum for probing an issue, and the results sometimes are surprising.

Here is where we win.  When the only people who were engaging the gay haters directly were us, they were able to hide the depth of their hate from the rest of straight America.  They could claim they were only motivated by a desire to protect children.  They could claim that they were only out to protect the institute of marriage in a time of every increasing divorce rates.  They could claim they were only motivated by their sincerely held religious beliefs, and not merely animus.  That love the sinner hate the sin was always just a thin coat of paint over God Hates Fags was something the rest of America never really got much of a chance to see, as long as most heterosexuals kept their distance from the fight.  Now, as more sons and daughters, more friends and co-workers come out to them, they are taking a closer look…

So it went with the supporters of Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution so that gay and lesbian couples no longer could marry. The board already has published its stand on the measure, but the editorial left out some interesting turns in the conversation.

The measure’s supporters are generally careful to avoid appearing anti-gay, probably because they realize that, for all the voter split on same-sex marriage, Californians generally support gay rights. They professed in our meeting to have no ill will toward gay people…until the talk went deeper.

And I expect it didn’t have to go very much deeper… 

At one point, the conversation turned to the "activist judges" whose May ruling opened the door to same-sex marriage, and how similar this case was to the 1948 case that declared bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. According to one of the Prop. 8 reps, that 1948 ruling was OK because people are born to their race and thus are in need of constitutional protection, while gays and lesbians choose their homosexuality. So much for the expert opinions of the American Psychological Assn. and the American Academy of Pediatrics that people cannot choose their sexuality. Oh, those activist doctor types.

In any case, one Prop. 8 supporter said, gay rights are not as important as children’s rights, and it’s obvious that same-sex couples who married would "recruit" their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers. Even editorial writers can be left momentarily speechless, and this was one of those moments.

Emphasis mine.  As Molly Ivins would have called it, a "whoa moment".  It isn’t so much the myth that children can catch homosexuality like a goddamned cold.  It’s the image of gay people as almost a separate parasitic species that shocks the conscience.  But for these people, it’s just common knowledge.  Homosexuals aren’t human. 

Aside from this notion of a homosexual recruitment plot — making it understandable where the word "homophobia" came from — this made no logical sense at all. Same-sex couples. whether married or not, already have children. Marriage wouldn’t change a thing about this picture except, perhaps, to model for children that parents tend to be married.

Exactly.  But it’s not about insuring that children have stable family lives.  It’s not about imparting the virtues of marriage to them.  It’s about cutting gay people out of the human family tree.  That’s it.  There is nothing more noble about their cause then that.  If you don’t believe that, spend some time talking to them.  Enough time for them to get all their spiels about loving the sinner out of the way, so they can get down to brass tacks.