Actually, it’s the other way around, at least in this case.
I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m smitten with Jennifer Lawrence, at the moment.
As others have pointed out, the OP’s thesis that he’s come up with something new just shows that he’s not been paying attention; the argument has been made many times by others.
As well, there are at least two other factual errors in the OP:
Since 1998, there have been 30 state constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, most enacted by referendums. That certainly sounds as if it’s an issue a lot of Americans care about. The media is reporting on a major issue in 30 different states.
The legal system is the opposite of technical and mechanical. It tries to reflect the society that it regulates, and responds to major social changes as they occur. If people’s attitudes to this issue change, the law will normally change in response.
The argument might have some validity if there were no significant legal advantages to marriage. Income splitting, family rights in cases of illness, inheritance rights, I could go on. The ban seems to me to obviously violate the equal protection clause. Nonetheless, I predict the court will validate Proposition 8 (states’ rights or something), but may well throw out DOMA (states’ rights or something). Over the next decade California will repeal Proposition 8 and a majority of states (maybe 30, excluding the southern and border states) will allow gay marriage and then a new court might see it my way.
Yeah, there’s also the oral sex.
Straight people have the right to marry *who they want *to marry.
Gay people do not.