Like people who are risk loving and prefer to take their chances rather than buy health insurance? People who enjoy mobility more than home ownership? People who enjoy sex with animals more than sex with people?
All regulations enshrine in law the inequality of a subset of persons - specifically, the subset of people who would (absent the law) engage in the prohibited action. If you want to argue that gays are a special subset who (unlike all the other subsets) deserve not to have regulations go against their preferences, do it. But the abstract principle you are appealing to probably proves far more than you want it to.
It's the other way around. It's gay marriage opponents who argue that heterosexuals couples are a special subset and deserve more rights than other couples.
It's the gay marriage proponents arguing that unlike medical devices or food preparation techniques, gay marriage is somehow beyond the purview of government to regulate. I'm asking about the principles underlying this strange exclusion.
I'm pretty sure that if you were to restrict gay marriage opponents to those that consider an issue of costs/benefits, the turnout in support of Prop.8 and similar legislative actions would be marginal. But feel free to show me wrong, my position is based mostly on personal observation and hearsay, not data.
By the way: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/category/research/econ...
It's the gay marriage proponents arguing that unlike medical devices or food preparation techniques, gay marriage is somehow beyond the purview of government to regulate. I'm asking about the principles underlying this strange exclusion.
No, they don't. That wouldn't even make sense, since (civil) marriage is regulation. What they object to is regulations that apply differently to people of different genders. You may disagree on the (ridiculous, in my opinion) basis that "gay people can still marry other people, just not each other", but claiming that you don't understand the principle is little more than trolling.
The principle is the Supreme Court's 1967 decision that marriage is a fundamental right.
You don't get to state this as fact just because it helps your argument. I assume you're well aware people on the other side consider sexual orientation to be inherent, rather than a simple preference.
If it turns out that risk preference or mobility preference is also "inherent", would that make Obamacare or mortgage subsidies/know your customer laws a violation of civil rights?
As an aside: I don't think you're comparing homosexual relationships to bestiality, but you're getting close. I hope you understand why this could be offensive and non-productive in a conversation.
If you must know, I'm pro-gay marriage and against all civil marriage. And I have no position on the current issue.
What I meant is that I agree marriage is a preference, but only if there are no additional benefits or rights bestowed (by the government) upon those entering the marriage.
By the way, I know concern trolling is your schtick, but it just doesn't work out so well.
Or were you hoping that would be a problem for me?