honestly, do people even listen to themselves?

Here's an article in today's WaPo about Virginia's upcoming referendum on the ubiquitous marriage issue.

Here's a quote from one of the amendment's sponsors:

"Nothing will change," said Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), one of the amendment's sponsors. "All this would do is prevent the gay rights crowd from gaining any perceived right to marry by going to the courts."

Nothing will change. All this would do is prevent citizens from exercising their rights.*

I. But. The. [facepalm]

*I have some semantic issues with the phrase "gaining rights"; to my mind, if it's a right, it is and always has been yours. Yes, many people are denied basic rights, but that doesn't mean those rights aren't theirs; that's what makes them rights. Something I can gain is something I haven't had before, and I don't like the idea that equality under the law is something that ought to be granted by someone who's holding onto it and deciding who gets it. I think it would help if more people took control of the political language this way. (This is another example of language affecting thought -- last time I was on about this issue in Virginia politics, I declared that I wasn't going to talk about "gay marriage" anymore, and I haven't.)

ETA: That is (upon further reflection), if I wanted to campaign against a [X]-rights group, I wouldn't argue, No, those people do not (or should not) have those rights, but instead, No, those things they want are not rights at all, but privileges. Of course there may be a hundred reasons why this wouldn't work that I haven't thought of; it's difficult for me to formulate a logical, defensible argument from that side. And also of course, I'm glad that side isn't arguing that way -- although if they were, I suppose it would soon come down to "are not!" vs. "are too!" But ultimately, what doesn't come down to that?