Comments about ‘Gay marriage ban backers seek Supreme Court review’

toosmart: "Everyone has the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite gender..."

You discount the role of romantic love and physical affection in marriage. In effect, you are endorsing arranged marriage, saying the government has the right to fix up couples who have no affinity for each other and reduce marriage to a business transaction (like the royals of yore). Arranged marriages may be fine for some cultures, but western society has placed a premium on love and affection as strengthening the pair pond for the last couple centuries.

To advocate domestic partnerships, as you suggest, is to embrace "separate, but equal," which is never equal.

RanchHand,

I and others have argued that the government should treat people equally- BUT that "equal protection of the laws" only applies to the law as written- that if a law defines marriage as man+woman, then as long as all people are bound by that same law, then the clause is satisfied. As I am out of room, I will also note that I have also argued here multiple times (which anyone can read) on how Loving v Virginia does not set a precedent for gay marriage arguments.

The fact that my arguments ARE REGARDING the Equal Protection Clause is objective proof that my argument at the VERY least is relevant to this debate. Your 'red herring' accusation is therefore not logical.

Equal treatment does not equate to relativist government. If "anything goes", then law cannot exist A Priori. Without some form of 'moral version' there would be no law.

Arguing that equal moral recognition "is a right" is an "Invincible Ignorance Fallacy" and a "conversation-stopper". It's an attempt to circumvent any further consideration in favor of tyranny disguised as legal relativism (aka: anarchy). Rather, you should be arguing WHY you consider equal moral recognition a right.