Seriously lame

I usually have high respect for the Christian Science Monitor, but I can't believe they published an article like this one. Okay, maybe I can see it -- looking for opposing opinions, and may be even a fresh take, and this is seriously one of the weirdest spins I've seen on the issue. In Gay marriage: Why Judge Walker got Proposition 8 ruling wrong, the author argues: Marriage is not about couples or lovers – it’s about the physical and moral integrity of women. When a woman’s sexuality is involved, human communities must deal with a malign force that an individual woman and her family cannot control or protect. WTF? The author then goes on to conclude, "[...] most of us who prefer to leave marriage (with all its defects) as it is are not concerned with homosexuality at all. We are merely voicing a sensible desire to preserve an institution that recognizes and protects the special status of women. If marriage becomes a legislative courtesy available to everyone, like a key to the city, it will be women who will lose."

This argument, so charmingly chauvinistic, is laughable in every way. "Special status of women"? Really? That's what this whole thing has been about? After reading this opinion, I feel like I ought to be standing on a marble pedastal or something like that, with a plaque, maybe some safety glass and someone nice to come and dust me off every now and then just in case a spec of dirt hurts me. It's an insulting argument in every way and makes no sense; we're in 2010, after all, and we women seem to have come far ahead in our abilities that three of us sit on the Supreme Court, a woman was a credible candidate for president, and one serves as Speaker of the House. Those are just the headlines. There are awesome women -- some of whom are (gasp!) single -- making extraordinary contributions every single day, seemingly unaware of their "special status". It's insulting in this day and age to read something like this. I'm surprised the CSMonitor allowed the author to get away with such a lazy argument. If you think it's okay to discriminate and create a whole second class citizenry, at least put in the time to come up with an justification that doesn't sound so atavistically patronizing.