Current laws against SSM are not unequal? Sure...

[AggregateDemand]

If the law means anything, the editorial letter has legal gravitas, even if people don't like the implications.

While it is the same argument made in Loving v. Virginia, the situation is obviously not the same. In Loving v. Virginia, the state was essentially arguing that a person's sun tan fundamentally changes the nature of a marriage relationship. It was racist and stupid.

Gay marriage presents a different situation, in which the editorial letter has merit. If people don't like it, perhaps they should stop being dumb sh*ts, who beg for regulation rather than freedom. The problems faced by homosexuals in the United States are not specific to homosexuals, nor do they have anything to do with sexual orientation. An unmarried heterosexual couple faces the same discrimination.

People need to get their heads straight, if they want to hurdle the social injustice inherent to government policies that discriminate against married and unmarried people. This issue isn't about gay or straight.

[AggregateDemand]

Lol, this again? The status of being unmarried isn't in and of itself the type of immutable characteristic that would ever qualify as a suspect or quasi-suspect class for the purposes of equal protection analysis. You're doing equal protection wrong.

You think marriage is an immutable characteristic? That's rich.

If choosing to marry someone of the same sex is an immutable characteristic, choosing not to marry someone of the opposite sex is equally immutable.

[AggregateDemand]

He thinks that the real victims of marriage laws in the U.S. are unmarried couples because they aren't eligible to receive the same state benefits that married couples receive. This is an argument against gay marriage because reasons.

Your lack of socioeconomic education is not a burden for others to bear.

The current tax system is inherently discriminatory towards married individuals, which necessitates reverse discrimination. Naturally, the world is not as simple as married or unmarried so the system has adopted all sorts of new perverse discriminatory doctrines under the false pretense of ability to pay. Reverse discrimination has exponentially outstripped the discrimination inherent to our system of graduated rates and health insurance exclusions, which would be painfully obvious to anyone who had looked at the income tax rates based upon marital status and income quintile.

[AggregateDemand]

You think marriage is an immutable characteristic?

The status of being unmarried isn't in and of itself the type of immutable characteristic that would ever qualify as a suspect or quasi-suspect class for the purposes of equal protection analysis.

If marriage is not an immutable characteristic, the state is free to discriminate, as they do in other forms of contractual obligation between parties. Whether he knows it or not, he's searching for an immutable characteristic upon which the government has infringed. In Loving v. Virginia, the state had clearly infringed upon man-woman relationships by exploiting race.

The ongoing gay marriage battle is based upon the idea that it has nothing to do with man-woman relations. It's obviously true. We have a bunch of different options. Expand the sickness by building gay marriage contract law and legal precedent. Expand the sickness by subjecting homosexuals to heterosexual relationship and contract law. Undermine the system of discrimination we have created, by repealing the foolhardy socioeconomic policy that brought about its existence.

We should? a) Spread the disease b) Treat the symptoms c) Eradicate the disease. Apparently, this is a trick question for most Americans, which is why our species continues to suffer needlessly.

[AggregateDemand]

Explain what "the sickness" is.

Careless social engineering.

[AggregateDemand]

The argument for gay marriage is that state discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation

No such discriminatory law exists. Instead, we have a man-woman contract law that doesn't legally apply to man-man or woman-woman relationships, an argument bolstered by marriage referendums to define marriage as man-woman contract and by the nature of monogamous relationships.

If privilege is excluded to man-woman contract, a lot more people than just gays are being openly discriminated against. If you were interested in preserving this kind of system wide discrimination, what would you do?

[AggregateDemand]

Nothing is sadder than the victim complexes of single, white men.

Nothing is more tragic than selective moderation by passive-aggressive beta personalities.

[AggregateDemand]

Who are you calling beta?

In fairness, I am reducing (but not eliminating entirely) the points I assessed. I always thought "pom" was a homophobic slur. Ernest corrected me that it actually is a (relatively minor) Aussie slur for English.

Fair enough