ACLU sues for gays' benefits 1929

I love it when buttholes like you try and pull this poo. It's like being attacked by a toy poodle. Lots of snarl and yapping, but ultimately it's just a tiny dog shaved to look like a powder puff.

Just like gay people who can adopt.

And this is important how?

Well, heteroloveual couples that have kids end up being parents, just like gay couples that have kids or adopt end up being parents. You seem to be saying that having parents of different gender is more important than, say, the consbreastutional right to equal protection under the law, which I'd argue is shortsighted.

No, you're wrong in both cases. Gay couples can have children in the good old fashioned way, just not with each other. They can also adopt. As for 'parenting ability,' there is no requirement for some kind of test of parenting ability in any state marriage licensing process, so your point is pretty darn irrelevant, wouldn't you say?

I'm going to set up an argument here, so bear with me for a moment....

States issue marriage licenses. Now, given that many states have DOMA-type laws enacted, this means that same-love marriages can't be licensed. So the question before us is this: Are DOMA-type restrictions consbreastutional? Do laws which prohibit licensing same-love marriages do so without reasonable justification? In other words, if it's unreasonable to restrict same-love couples from getting married, then the consbreastution's equal protection clause would mean that those restrictions were unconsbreastutional. So in order to find out if those restrictions are consbreastutional or not, we have to ask this question: How, exactly, is it reasonable to restrict same-love couples from getting marriage licenses?

Follow me? The consbreastution, in it's equal protection clause, says that all laws apply equally. The supreme court says that equal protection applies if restrictive laws are unreasonable. That is, if there's not a legitimate reason for laws to apply differently to different sets of people, then the restriction is unconsbreastutional.

So I ask you: What is the rational, reasonable justification for restricting same-love marriages from being licensed, just like they are for straight folk?

..

But equal protection *is.* And we're talking about marriage *licenses* here.

Except, as noted, you've erected a strawman here.

Your strawman is almost as ludicrous as your reductio ad absurdum.