I think everyone's assuming I agreed with how wbam feels, which I don't. I only agree with what he said in that one single post.

Quote:

the G-man said:
You CAN argue for one without arguing for the other. However, if you are going to be intellectually consistent you pretty much have to do so.


No, you don't. Outside the one man/one woman amendment proposal, the two have very little in common. I could very easily argue for gay marriage or polygamy while arguing against the other without losing consistency. Jim Jackson is doing it right now.

In fact, if gay marriage supporters fought to get a "one man or woman/one man or woman" amendment instead, the two fronts would lose pretty much ALL shared legal ground.