Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy

[Alcon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is it possible to do it year by year? We can adjust for the variance.

To detect a trend?  We can adjust for the variance outside of Massachusetts, but unfortunately there's no way to do that with Massachusetts since that's n=1.  Unless I'm really missing some clever statistical trick here.

Maybe you can explain what you're worried will be missed with the method I suggested, and then I can try to figure something out?  If not, are you OK with the methodology I suggested?  (It's still way better than just a secondary correlation, obviously.)

[Alcon]

It's a more neurtral approach. Rather then making 2004 'special', we assign equal value to all years.

Your approach is more clumpy, mine less so. More data points = less variance.

Err, I'm using all the data points, just combining them into an average for pre- and post-2004.  I'm using all data points; I'm just averaging out so we minimize Massachusetts' variance.  It is "clumpy," but the variance is the same as the trendline method you suggest before (except, in the trendline method, you're dealing with % change instead of raw average, so natural variances appear larger.)  Make sense?

Combining years with high-variance statistics is a way, way accepted method.  I'm not pulling anything on you here.  So, ready for me to run with it?  (no pressure.)

Yes, trendlines are really handy.

Trendlines are fantastic, but in a data set with so much variance, if I plot the trendline for Massachuestts and compare it to the rest of the states, Massachusetts is going to have unusually high variance since it's n=1 and the other sample is n=>30.

Tell you what: I'll create a trendline for each state individually, and then compare the slopes of the trendlines to other states vs. Massachusetts.  If we're seeing lots of wacky, slopey lines, like I suspect might happen, we'll trash it.  If Massachusetts stands out on the bad side and isn't accompanied by more than a few other states, that's not particularly good evidence (again, variance issues) but it's worth looking at if it isn't the only method of analysis.

I'm on slightly shakier statistical ground with the trendlines, but I think Excel's CORRELATION function should work fine for those purposes.  Sound good?

[Alcon]

But, understanding that we have a disagreement on the relative virtues of the first versus second method, are you ready for me to run the first method?  Although it lacks trendlines, it is certainly the less volatile of the two methods, and we know we won't have to throw it out due to appearance of noise.  If you don't have any suggested tweaks, shall I run it?

(Why I think this less-volatile method is better: Even if this method does not use trendlines, it would still include any "hit" marriage took in MA even if the effect was delayed...so even under the delayed-effect hypothesis, the "hit" would show up in the less-volatile method's numbers.  That, combined with the lesser volatility, is why I'll argue it's the superior method.)

Alcon, let me guess - you trained in social sciences?

My major is in Political Science but it's more humanities-focused.  This is just the method of analyzing public policy that makes most sense to me.  It actually involves real-world application (unlike some more straightforward, concrete stats stuff) and it isn't made-up bullsh**t (unlike a lot of policy argumentation.)  I think stats + ethical theory is the best hope for making policy in a way that doesn't just exclusively involve knee-jerk/ideology-driven power-plays.

What's your field of study?  (Not to be presumptuous, but the way you write suggests you have some formal education in this or something similar-ish)

[Alcon]

Ahh, cool Yeah, same vocabulary, very different sort of Stats (from what I've gathered)

Here's the low-variance "post vs. pre" method:

Change in divorce rate, post-2004 period versus pre-2004 period
Massachusetts: -9.8%
United States: -13.4%
Positive change (Massachusetts minus U.S.): -3.6%

Change in marriage rate, post-2004 period versus pre-2004 period
Massachusetts: -7.4%
United States: -17.6%
Positive change (Massachusetts versus U.S.): +10.2%

Change in marriage:divorce ratio, post-2004 period versus pre-2004 period
Massachusetts: +2.7%
United States: -3.9%
Positive change (Massachuestts versus U.S.): +6.6%

Yep, so:  Massachusetts's decline in divorce rate was a bit lower than the U.S.'s between these two periods.  However, Massachusetts saw much less of a decline in the marriage rate than the U.S. did.  Consequentially, Massachusetts actually saw an increase in marriages-per-divorce between the two periods (+2.7%) while the other states saw an average decline (-3.9%).

It's a small difference (these are percents of decimals), but using this measurement of divorce and marriage rates, Massachusetts pretty clearly fared better than the rest of the U.S. overall after legalizing gay marriage.  Massachusetts "wins" this method.

[Alcon]

So, how do you want to do the trendline bit?  You're right that it's best to avoid using one year as a big data point, so I'm reluctant to just set 2003 or 2004 as year 0.  How about I average 1999-2003 and set that as year 0, make 2004 year 1, 2005 year 2, and so on?  That creates a model that is extremely sensitive to trends post-2003, for better or for worse, but mitigates the variance problem a little.

I'm using the marriage:divorce ratio for this, if that's cool.  That seems like the best metric, although I suppose I can also use (marriage rate-divorce rate).  Whichever you like...

[Alcon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, now what would happen if you toss out the high MA and the low MA numbers? The US numbers should be ok. Tossing out high low is how we 'correct' for the variance in the MA numbers.

Well, that's how you control for outliers, but it jacks up the variance since you reduce the number of years from 7 to 5.  Mixed blessing...and the MA "outliers" are pretty tame compared to many of the smaller states.

But pretty much nothing happens:

Change in divorce rate, post-2004 period versus pre-2004 period
Massachusetts: -9.9%
United States: -13.4%
Positive change (Massachusetts minus U.S.): -3.5%

Change in marriage rate, post-2004 period versus pre-2004 period
Massachusetts: -8.2%
United States: -17.6%
Positive change (Massachusetts versus U.S.): +9.4%

Change in marriage:divorce ratio, post-2004 period versus pre-2004 period
Massachusetts: +1.8%
United States: -3.9%
Positive change (Massachuestts versus U.S.): +5.7%

There's just no rational statistical method where MA doesn't fare better post-2004 than the other states.

[Alcon]

I was thinking about this. It might be more useful to chart the slopes rather than the absolute values, and then plot all the slopes of all 50 states on top of them.

That should give us a pretty good approximation as to what is going on with each states. It should show up as to whether or not MA is an outlier.

Yep, that's what I was planning to do.  I just need to know the timeframe and the statistic to chart, like I asked above.

(Also, like I alluded to previously, I excluded 8 states that have years missing...shouldn't matter, but just want to be transparent.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now we have a much more reliable sample. We haven't gotten to the point yet where we can say that this isn't due to random factors.

What's the standard deviation of the 100 averages (pre + post)?

I honestly think this is all probably noise.  I really doubt legalizing gay marriage has enough effect on marriage and divorce rates overall, which are dominated by heterosexuals, to outpace the effect of noise.

The Excel STDEV function is screwy, but it looks like it's 7.6%.

Mean is -3.9%.

Range is +17.0% (Iowa) to -20.3% (Nevada)

Distribution looks a lot like a bell curve, with Massachusetts on the happy side of the middle (14th of 43.)

I'd never suggest that this is anything like conclusive evidence that gay marriage is good for "marital health" of states, but this metric says it's much likelier to be good than bad, if it's either.

[Alcon]

All right.

For what it's worth, I did a simple CORRELATION (correlation between year and the change in the marriage:divorce ratio) in Excel, which would get about the same result as the slope method.  Again, Massachusetts appears to be on the happier side of the middle of the pack, 20th of 43.  The marriage:divorce ratio didn't fare particularly well during this period, which isn't a big surprise with the economic downturn.  However, only 3 states reached statistically significant downward correlations -- Virginia, Wisconsin and Arkansas.  All three of these states banned gay marriage during this period although I'm not reading much of anything into that.

So, where are we at with this debate?  Before, you were saying the "broken window" hypothesis is probabilistic based on secondary correlations.  Now, we've isolated the variable as well as we can.  I did one test that is high-variance, high-trend-sensitivity; I did another that is mid-variance, mid-trend-sensitivity.  Both of these are direct, instead of secondary correlations.  They both indicate that the state with gay marriage (Massachusetts) has fared better in marital health by all metrics than states without gay marriage.  Eyeballing these numbers, it appears states that banned gay marriage also fared worse than those that didn't.  In fact, I bet if I run a correlation between gay marriage opposition and marital health deterioration between this period, it might reach statistical significance.

No matter, though.  The point is:

1. There's no evidence that gay marriage deteriorated the "marital health" of Massachusetts versus the states without gay marriage.

2. If anything, Massachusetts' "marital health" relatively improved.

3. This new evidence is more direct than the data you were using to bolster the "broken window" hypothesis, which you made the empirical cornerstone of your argument.

Are you ready to reevaluate?

[Alcon]

...Broken window, yeah sure maybe man.  But...you don't see anything here that suggests that you lack empirical evidence for your assertion that The Gays are contributing to that "broken" window?  That was...the entire point of this exercise.

How many states have to legalize gay marriage and then perform better-than-average in "marital health" trends before you change your mind on gay marriage...?

[Alcon]

Wow, dude.

The only way that you can accept gay marriage is if it reverses, all by itself, the downward trend in "marital health"?

You don't even care if the variable "presence of gay marriage" seems to have no negative effect on "marital health"?  Because Massachusett's superior "marital health" trend was unarguably probabilistic, statistically significant in most interpretations and a direct, not secondary, correlation.  It's better, harder evidence than you were previously using to ground your argument...and now suddenly you're discounting it?  When before you were all "they may be indirect, man, but look at the empirics"?  Maybe I misunderstand something.  If not, how the hell can you defend that...?

But, yeah, go ahead and explain to me what conclusion I made that's "rubbish."  This will be interesting.

sorry indeed...

[Alcon]

That, or it shows to be statistically significant in this survey here. It wasn't, so yeah, I'm unconvinced that this is anything more than noise. You said it so yourself.

That's the same thing!  You're believing your hypothesis because of a secondary correlation, when isolating the variable indicates that there's no evidence that gay marriage is the explanatory variable!  How does that work?  My entire point was that the evidence for your hypothesis sucks, and your presumed explanatory variable (presence of gay marriage contributing to a "broken window") is unsubstantiated when you isolate the variable.  Basically, you've set up a mode of analysis where you can stake a causal hypothesis and the only way to reject it is to prove that the subject of the causal agent (gay marriage) is so strong it actually reverses all other trends (deceased "marital health"), not just that there's no evidence it contributes to those trends when you isolate the hypothesized causal agent.  How can this make any sense to you?  How can you care about the secondary correlation, but not about isolating the variable you're trying to test for?  That is not how proving a hypothesis works in any branch of science because it is totally irrational.

Re: statistical significance: I was referring to the pre- vs. post-2004 change of MA vs. other states as being statistically significant, but I may have run the test wrong.  But are you accusing me of intentionally mis-running a statistical significance test?  Does that match my behavior in this thread at all?  It's like you've reverted to hackery once I ran this analysis  (Also, again, statistical significance is arbitrary.  94% certainty is still pretty damn likely, and is again, superior to your secondary correlation which can't even be tested for statistical significance but yet you accept your hypothesis as gospel truth anyway wtf.)

Either I'm misunderstanding it (I don't think so) or your methodology of analysis is almost completely illogical.

[Alcon]

Seriously, not to beat up on you, but I can't believe you're accusing me of arguing to your own conclusions, when your mode of analysis is built upon arbitrarily accepting objectively inferior evidence that matches your conclusion (secondary correlation with no statistical significance test possible) and arbitrarily accepting hypotheses until you are 95% confident that they're untrue...

Would you actually apply this mode of analysis to anything in your discipline?

[Alcon]

How are we coming with the empirical evidence?  What is the reader's digest version? I have a little question. Why are hetero families in the most disarray where the specter of gay marriage is the least visible and distracting, or whatever the theory is?  I mean, how many gays are running around Mississippi agitating for gay marriage?  And why are black families in the most disarray?  I mean how much do most of those folks think about gay marriage at all, or even gays, except to disdain them perhaps?  They should be the least susceptible to the family toxic gay influence no?  Sorry to butt in.

Ben's hypothesis is that gay marriage contributes to a "broken window effect" that is responsible for the decline of the institution of marriage in recent years.

His evidence is that "marital health" (divorce and marriage statistics) have not fared well nationally since gay marriage became legalized in Massachusetts and became a viable national issue.

I attempt to isolate the effect of gay marriage by comparing the "marital health" statistics in Massachusetts versus in the nation.  They failed to substantiate the hypothesis; although there is high variance, Massachusetts fared better by all metrics than the nation as a whole.

After I made a best-faith effort to isolate this variable and it did not substantiate his hypothesis (the opposite, if anything), he complained that Massachusetts' better performance could be statistical noise.

Basically, he's accepted the hypothesis that gay marriage contributes to the "broken window" of marriage based on a secondary correlation ("marital health" continues to decline as gay marriage was legalized.)  He dismisses any attempt to isolate the variable "presence of same-sex marriage" to figure out if it's an explanatory variable, unless it's an explanatory variable in the opposite direction, to statistical significance.

In other words, unless I can prove to statistical significance that gay marriage alone reverses the downward trend in marital health he's presuming that gay marriage contributes to the "broken window."  This is despite the fact that his only evidence for this is the national marital trends, and since he's not even isolating a variable in his analysis, he can't even perform a statistical significance test on that.

Really short version: He's using inferior, more general evidence to justify his hypothesis, and then arbitrarily rejecting more precise evidence.  It's absolute crap, and I don't really believe anyone sees reality that way unless they're arguing to conclusions.

Sorry, that's a little complicated and wordy, but we're talking about hypotheses, statistical analysis results, and statistical analysis methods at the same time, which tends to make for long sentences

[Alcon]

But why bother when he's so clearly just a cretinous fyckwit?

I don't think he is, I'm just dumbfounded

[Alcon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, you've misunderstood.

Gay marriage is a symptom, not a cause. The overall decline of marriage predates gay marriage and that decline is precipitating demand for gay marriage.

Demonstrating to me, quite objectively, that marriage has undergone substantial decline in the US, in all 50 states isn't going to deter someone from this hypothesis, quite the contrary. It is going to reinforce the connection between marriage declines leading towards demand for gay marriage.

Now, I'm happy you are attempting to argue my thesis, but please get it right. Gay marriage is a symptom, not a cause.

OK, well, that's different.  So, does gay marriage, or does it not, cause negative consequences for "marital health" -- regardless of whether it's symptomatic?

If not, why prohibit it?

Hey, because if gay marriage makes people happy and doesn't damage the institution of marriage, best policy symptom evar!

[Alcon]

Oh, OK, so yes, gay marriage would need to single-handedly reverse the downward trend in "marital health" for you to accept it.  Yes?  No other way?

Also, I'm curious about whether you'd have applied this same analytical standard to interracial marriage.

(I'm not just speed-replying; I'm trying to understand your position better before I respond to it.  I already have pretty strenuous objections -- not the least of which is that you're failing to respond to my critique of your double standard of analysis -- but I don't want to put the cart in front of the horse here.)

[Alcon]

bump...because, even after thinking about it pretty thoroughly today, this rationale still seems completely intractable/bewildering to me.

[Alcon]

(You may want to read all of this post before replying, because the last part may render the first two questions moot)

To disprove the thesis that gay marriage is a symptom of marriage declines, yes, this is what it would require.

How could that be disproved?  A statistical analysis of correlation between decline in "marital health" and increased support for gay marriage?  As I'm disputing the import of this analysis below, this is mostly out of curiosity.

Unless your thesis is that the two are somehow related, I'm not sure what this non sequitor has to do with the topic at hand.

Say some dude makes an honest argument that marrying within race is an important social norm, for whatever reason.  It doesn't matter; he claims that interracial marriage is symptomatic of the decline of social norms and traditional values that are driving marriage rates down.  He points to the same correlations you look at, and charts out the increase in support of interracial marriage and decline in "marital health."  How do you respond to him on this?

You seem to be treating this like it's a referendum on gay marriage. That's why you aren't understanding the thesis.

The thesis:

Gay marriage is a symptom of marriage declining in America.

Your proof:

Marriage declines in America followed up by gay marriage.

You argument seems to be:

Massachusetts has a statisically insignificant slowing of the decline of marriage, ergo gay marriage is a public good and ought to be instituted across america.

What you seem to think my argument is:

Gay marriage is bad because it causes marriage decline.

If I've misunderstood you, let me know.

I guess I was confused because I don't understand how "gay marriage is a symptom of bad thing x" is an argument against gay marriage unless you're arguing that gay marriage exacerbates thing x.  Actually, you know why I was confused?  Because you posted this at the start of our exchange (emphasis added):

Gay marriage weakens the natural family, because you're arguing that 'sex doesn't matter', and that there is no such thing as 'men' or 'women' that would actually be relevant to marriage.

If gay marriage is more likely to lead to relationships outside of marriage, then gay marriage is going to hurt the economy as it forms unstable unions that are more likely to break up as well as discouraging marriage altogether.

That's what Santorum is getting at. It makes sense, but you have to have some of the background to understand the premisses.

My "misinterpretation" of your position here seems reasonable to me, considering that post is where our exchange started.

My argument isn't "Massachusetts has a statisically insignificant slowing of the decline of marriage, ergo gay marriage is a public good [sic] and ought to be instituted across America."  I was just presuming that you were trying to show gay marriage as a causal agent of something bad because that's what the quoted portion above is about.  People generally oppose gay marriage on the basis that it will...do bad things.  That's the idea I was getting from your posts.

So, let's just cut to the chase.  I'm here to try to change your mind on a public policy based on my opinion, which is guided by an ethical theory of public policy plus empirical evidence.  Why are you against civil recognition of gay marriages (if you are)?

[Alcon]

Why am I against it? Because I'm Catholic and my faith teaches that homosexuality is sinful. So if you feel it's worth your time to argue with me otherwise, feel free. But don't say I didn't warn you.

Theoretical question:  Even if gay marriage was empirically proven to bolster the economy, and marriage, and whatever, would you still unconditionally oppose civil recognition because your faith disagrees with it?

As for interracial marriage - nobody chooses to be black (or white, or whatever). People choose to engage in homosexuality. The analogy between the two simply doesn't hold up.

People...choose to engage in interracial relationships too.  I'm not sure how you think that breaks down the analogy.  There are distinctions, but that's not one of them.

[Alcon]

I'm still wondering on how you distinguish the interracial issue using your method of analysis, but whatever.

I'm also wondering why you thought the portion I quoted wouldn't lead me to the assumption about your argument I made.  Was I not paraphrasing what you said?

Do you oppose civil recognition of gay marriage (that allows churches to refuse to marry gays)?

Your last post kind of confused me because of the weird quote-copying.

[Alcon]

Do you see homosexuality as a choice or what, alcon?

I tend to think people have strong biological predispositions, although those can be socialized and conditioned to an extent.  I think that's true of both heterosexuality and homosexuality.  Homosexual acts are a choice, like any sex act.

Does that help you to answer my questions, or explain why you seemed to be arguing what you're now claiming you never did?

[Alcon]

Do you see homosexuality as a choice or what, alcon?

Does that help you to answer my questions, or explain why you seemed to be arguing what you're now claiming you never did?

Key words here - "I seemed". This is why I clarified myself. You had the wrong perception.

Now as for this point here, thank you for clarifying yourself. So you think we have strong predispositions that can be controlled. Ok.

Race is different, far different from this. This is why what applies to race cannot be applied to homosexuality. You can't suddenly stop being black, white, whatever. But you can change your habits and your desires.

This is a part of marriage - giving up things that you may have once enjoyed for other benefits inside a family. We restrict choices in marriage. Curtail behaviours that can be destructive out of concern for our partners and our family.

See where I'm going with this?

It comes back to the basic question - you are not what you do. What you do does not change who you are as a person.

I'm going to stop here. Get your reaction to all this.

Again...race may not be selected, but participating in a relationship with someone of another race is.  It's probably easier to condition yourself out of love with someone of a different race than condition a sexual orientation change.

What point were you making with that initial post, if not the one I replied to?  ...How else does one read that?

I'm also waiting on an answer to the other questions from my last post.

[Alcon]

Again...race may not be selected, but participating in a relationship with someone of another race is.  It's probably easier to condition yourself out of love with someone of a different race than condition a sexual orientation change.

Ok, now lets go back a bit. That's an important point here.

Is the purpose of marriage to recognize all relationships? Or only some? If the purpose of marriage is to recognize all relationships, then you are correct here - that there's no rationale.

But if the purpose of marriage is to recognize only some relationships, then the question is - which relationships are relevant to recognition in marriage? Why have marriage at all?

I'll keep this broad and short, but feel free to ask me to expand as-needed!

I think that the best argument for civil marriage is incentivizing monogamy and stability and other conditions that have positive societal benefits (...nice windows? )

How this lines up with your response re: interracial marriage or explaining why your original comment sounded like it was arguing gay marriage did bad things, I do not know!  I look forward to being led down the (garden? ) path on this one...

[Alcon]

I'm getting to there.

I believe that race, for the purposes of marriage to the state is irrelevant. It makes no difference to the state to recognise marriage between say black people and white people or whatever.

Personally, this is something that's really important to me. My own preferences are for someone who isn't white. Statewise, the state derives the exact same benefit either way.

However, I don't see this as true with gay marriage. I think the state has a legitimate concern to promote marriage between one man and one woman for two purposes:

1, marital stability. Marriage is the best outcome for a man and a woman because the alternatives (as we are seeing right now with common law), are less stable. They are more likely to break up.

Interracial marriages have higher divorce rates.  Something like 50% higher I believe.  Maybe you should condition yourself to love somebody else -- you know, for society's sake.

However, the better question is really not whether divorce rates are higher, but whether the effect of marriage on a given population is to increase monogamy -- since the purpose of the public policy is to increase monogamy, not necessarily just keep divorce rates down.  No?

2, procreation. Marriage, between a man and a woman is the best situation for children. I am not saying that alternatives are unworkable, just that on the overall scale - it's in the best interest of the state to promote what has and does work. Even though many children are born outside of wedlock marriage is more likely to produce families with sufficient children to not only sustain, but to induce population growth.

What do you honestly think gay marriage prohibition does more of?

1. Causes gays to rethink the gay thing, turn straight, and have kids.

2. Discourage long-term gay couples, about a third of whom adopt -- which is something we (and the world generally) need.

Where does gay marriage fit into this? If we start saying that marriage isn't about the union between a man and a woman, then it starts to lose it's purpose. The question starts being asked - what benefit does the state derive from marriage recognition? Would the state be better off providing no recognition whatsoever?

Yes, and ignoring arguments of equal protection (which still are important to me), the case for heterosexual marriage being a significantly superior policy to gay marriage seems terrible to me.

I still have no idea what this has to do with your first post in this thread, btw, or my questions about your methods of analysis.

[Alcon]

Ben,

Have to make this fast, but here's a few responses:

Again, going back to the point in question - is marriage about recognizing all relationships or just some. No one is saying that you have to leave the person that you love, far from it.

But I am asking - should we recognize this particular relationship as marriage?

Yes.

Please just answer directly about interracial marriage.  "Race is not a choice" is invalid because marrying someone of a different race is a choice, certainly moreso than sexual orientation.

Given the lack of participation of the gay community into marriage - I don't see how one can argue that gay marriage increases monogamy among them.

Well, then gay marriage is a failure due to lack of participation. 

That doesn't follow.  Not to be a dick, but I've already said why:  you're equivocating marginal differences with non-differences.  It's irritating when I've pointed this out directly three times (at least) and you just repeat it instead of addressing the critique.

Again, as you've so beautifully argued early - gay marriage has no effect on the overall divorce rate because there isn't enough of them.

What does "no effect on the overall divorce rate" mean?  Having "no effect" is different than dominating the trends in divorce rate.  It's irritating when I've pointed this out directly three times (at least) and you just repeat it instead of addressing the critique.

Which has the larger effect - 10 percent of the population choosing not to get married at all, or 1 percent of the population choosing to adopt?

You are accepting this hypothesis based on intuition and not empircal evidence, and then refusing to consider other hypotheses based on the same reason.  You have double standards in your analysis that are designed to reach your conclusions.  It's irritating when I've pointed this out directly three times (at least) and you just repeat it instead of addressing the critique.

You've said that we should not expect overall marriage rates to go up because there's not enough gay people, and at the same time, you're arguing now that they are going to have a net, positive effect.

Yes, because those aren't mutually exclusive!  (Assuming "net" refers to the net of the policy.)

Which is it? If they are going to have a net positive effect here, shouldn't we also be seeing a net positive effect on the marriage rate too?

False dichotomy, as I've already explained.  It's irritating when I've pointed this out directly three times (at least) and you just repeat it instead of addressing the critique.

And we get another argument pulled out of the bin.

I don't even know what criticism I'm levying here.  This thread started out as an empirical challenge because you quoted Santorum's claim that gay marriage contributed to the "broken window" effect and called it reasonable.  Now you're denying you meant to argue that, and not explaining why.  So, I started by challenging that claim.  You are now complaining that I did not bring in every argument I have re: gay marriage at the beginning?  I was addressing one specific claim.  You're being absurd.

Equal protection doesn't apply here. Equal protection only applies to things like race, and disability, things which are not choices. We don't apply equal protection to things that can change over time.

Would you feel that there is an argument for equal protection applying to interracial marriage, or no?  (Note that the analogue here is not race, but the act of marrying someone of the other race.)