IDK how you feel about using legal force to strip someone of a civil right, but that seems pretty active to me. It's certainly less of a stretch than characterizing OP as "blatant lies", but I guess your standards for precision of language only flow one way. Have a good one!

With your standards, people are allowed to claim that others think "they shouldn't be allowed to exist", and people wanting to distinguish it from actual totalitarian/genocidal policy are left doing the linguistic precision thing. There's a simple, clear way to describe what he did and thought and maybe thinks still, which is just that gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Very clear, no hyperbole.

>which is just that gay marriage shouldn't be legal.

Which cannot be done without explicitly preventing gay people from having certain basic rights. It flies directly in the face of equality for all. "These two consenting adults are not allowed to do what nearly all consenting adults are allowed to do" is expressly treating them as second class citizens. You can't get around that.

> Which cannot be done without explicitly preventing gay people from having certain basic rights. It flies directly in the face of equality for all.

No one in this thread argued that two consensual adults should be prevented from getting married, so who exactly are you directing this comment at?

No one here expressed support for preventing gay people from getting married. Why are you hung up on that argument, and not the one that is being made?