They wish to deprive him of the legal right to marry. His disapproval of Althouse’s marriage is on an entirely different level. It is this which makes your statement such a bald misrepresentation.

Andrew and I agree on many things, including the rights of LGBT people to marry the partner of their choice. Among the reasons I favor marriage equality is the notion that social elites should not hold the power to invalidate the love of others, which is seemingly a private concept and warrants no public debate.

He saw Ann’s wedding as frivolous for 1)developing online and then 2) maturing with almost comical pace. Even if they did rush into things, it’s their right — just as it will soon be his. He and his parter of 5 years are married, but aren’t seen as such by the federal government. The ball has been set in motion and the pieces are in play, but it is seriously undermined by heterophobe commentary.

And just to quibble with you, Daniel, since you seem so intent on questioning my understanding of legal matters, Andrew is not “liberal” on legal issues because he “believes that the proper way to deal with moral issues is on a social level.” The courts have always justified intellectually lax legal reasoning by deeming it in accordance with social norms — suffice it to say, as a minority, Andrew would be wary of such a theory. The majority — namely, those who establish norms — rarely, if ever, intercede on the behalf of a minority party when their rights have been infringed upon. Go read some Dworkin, you need a refresher course in legal theory.

Are you not capable of basic reading comprehension, or are you just being mendacious?