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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I thought I'd seen some rather convoluted arguments in the SSM debate, but this one from the letters to the editor of the local newspaper Monday has to take the cake.
http://www.thestate.com/2014/09/15/3677195/monday-letters-gay-marriage-a.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let the laughter commence, and rightly so.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's literally the exact same "logic" people used against legalizing inter-racial marriage. "You still have equal rights: The right to marry anyone from your race!"

Actually, it's worse than that.  It would be as if one argued back then that restricting interracial marriage is all right is acceptable if all races are affected, but that for instance a law that only banned whites from marrying non-whites while allowing people from different non-white races to marry would be wrong.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's up there with "gay men have the same right as straight men to marry the woman of their choice."

I do not miss the arguments of the 90s and early 2000s.

I was going to say that the argument made by Mr. Gosnell of Spartanburg was way better than that one.

No it's not.  I fail to see how Mr. Gosnell's argument has any logical foundation.  The "gay men have the same right as straight men to marry the woman of their choice" is logical but depends upon a view of marriage based on complementary gender roles and a view of gender as being purely anatomically determined.  Yet even with opposite sex marriage, marriage under the law has long since abandoned the first viewpoint and kept the second more out of inertia than any other reason.