You can't make this stuff up, William Lane Craig edition
"Laws permitting gay marriage would be clearly unconstitutional, since they would not be blind to the sexual orientation of the persons involved. Such laws would sanction marriage for same-sex couples only if they were homosexuals, thereby taking cognizance of their sexual orientation and discriminating against heterosexuals who wanted to enter into marriage with someone of the same sex."From this Q&A.
This is so mind-numblingly stupid that I'm not sure it even merits a response, but I'm going to give one anyway. If the Supreme Court votes against DOMA and Prop 8, they will not be adding some sort of amendment to the Constitution that in some undefined way will infringe upon the rights of straight people (who apparently are waiting in line to marry same-sex partners even though they're straight). Rather, the rulings would mean that it is unconstitutional, at either the state or federal level, to forbid marriages based on sexual orientation.
SCOTUS simply has to decide that laws restricting marriage to hetersexual marriages – which clearly infringe upon gay people's right to marry – are unconstitutional. It means taking the government out of marriage. It means that no state or federal legislature gets to decide that consenting adults of the same sex cannot marry – and yes, that would include straight people who for who knows what reason would want to marry someone of the same sex.
Craig continues, dumbly,
What they are not free to do under federal law, whatever their race or orientation, is to enter into same sex marriage, simply because there is no such thing. Marriage is by its essence a relation between a man and a woman.Says who? Christian conservatives? Because nine states and the District of Columbia have all legalized gay marriage. I'm pretty sure there is such a thing. Denial, Bill Craig, ain't just a river in Egypt.
Edit: One more thing to add. Even if we grant Craig his entire argument (ha!), it would still be completely undermined simply by wording any gay marriage legislation as "same-sex marriage" rather than "gay marriage" – which to my knowledge is how most such legislation is worded anyway, since lesbians are generally included in the fight for marital equality. Then, all those millions of straight people who want to marry same-sex partners could do so.
Craig finishes with this whopper of stupidity:
Those who espouse same-sex marriage want to deconstruct marriage so that what counts as marriage is just a matter of convention. Once we start down that route, anything goes: a man and two women, a man and a child, two men and a goat, etc. I see no reason at all to start down that road.It's astounding to me that any adult human of average or better intelligence cannot understand the relevant difference between same-sex marriage and pedophilia or bestiality – that same-sex marriage is between consenting adults.