I read her reply before she posted it. It was quite legitimate and used no unreasonable rhetorical techniques.

I can see why you didn’t like it — it made you look like a bigot by the simple expedient of replacing “gay” with “interracial” appropriately in your original post. This would not have worked if your original message hadn’t already expressed what I can only characterize as unreasonable sentiments.

I can understand your reaction. No one wants to think that of themselves. We would all like to feel our personal prejudices do not reflect hidden bigotries. The mature person, however, tries to learn from the experience when the image in the mirror is unpleasant to view.

Perhaps I’ll let people know elsewhere if she puts it up on another blog. It was a good example of the technique, and not the least bit impolite.

But you can’t possibly mean that, can you? You’re a libertarian, right? Someone who believes in equality and freedom for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. Right?

Is giving more people the right to walk into some gov’t office, and walk out with added privileges, a step in the right direction?

What about those of us who want said privileges and aren’t willing to get married heterosexually or homosexually?

Why can’t i give some of these benefits to a platonic friend without getting the furors, edit: governors, permission:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

The entirety of state-sponsored marriage reminds me of the false-rumor of where the word FUCK came from or a form of “seniorage”. Rumor has it the king owned all virgins under his domain and in order to take ones virginity you had to get his permission. (supposedly not true - http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/fuck.asp)

So now I need state sponsorship to make sure my friendship is “good enough” for the state to let me leave my social security to my friend?

It’s funny how gay marriage, when it has been legitimized, has always been initiated by “activist” judges, while popular initiatives have banned or severely curtailed gay-marriage in most states. Similarly, the right to privately enjoy gay or other deviant sex, as well as pornography, is another right rendered by judicial activism, tied to the “created” notions of a right to privacy and conscience, much as is the right to abortion rendered by Roe v. Wade. It is also unthinkable that without the judicial fiat invalidating sodomy laws, that open homosexual conduct would have gained the wider societal acceptance that was a necessary precursor to legitimatizing gay marriage. Let’s face it, twenty, or even ten years ago, the notion of legally homosexual marriage was an absurdity.

It was particularly entertaining, in our last debate, to see Mr Knapp hem and haw between supporting Federalism and a woman’s right to choose, when the latter is ensured by the former. As with the Federal interventions that struck down racist Jim Crow laws, one wonders if most Libertarians would really prefer the end of Federalism if it brought about decreased civil liberties.

A very thought-provoking post. No-one minds a long essay if it is well-written.

To the extent the law still discriminates in favor of sexual partners, expanding it from heterosexual partners to all sexual partners is at least a start. And any attempt to limit homosexuals is a start in the wrong direction.

The problem with DOMA is that it carves out an exception from the Article 5 guarantee that states will recognize contracts made in other states, such that no state has to honor that guarantee when it comes to marriage contracts (validly entered in other states) by same sex couples. Certainly not as bad as a constitutional ban. But it is pretty bad (not to mention unconstitutional).