Spivak kept pressing. “You never actually answered, how does it threaten anyone?” she asked.
Rove asked, what’s the compelling reason to throw out 5,000 years of understanding the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman?
What, Spivak countered, was the compelling reason for society to allow interracial relationships when they had once been outlawed.
Then Rove invoked the Declaration of Independence before Spivak interjected that its reference to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” seemed to support her claims.
Eventually, Rove wiggled out of the debate by asking Spivak “when she planned to run for political office.”
A nice illustration of how weak the argument is for the other side. I can concede that both sides of the political divide have reasonable arguments for most of their respective positions, even if I think that conservatism has been largely discredited by its abject failure following its widespread adoption in the Bush years. This, however, is one of relatively few issues where the conservative position is not only weak, but it lacks even a defensible rationale.
Then again, rational argumentation was never Rove's forte.