Thank you for reading my comment. Did you start your life as a poor black child in the ghetto?

Try comparing the gayest zip code neighborhoods and the blackest zip code neighborhoods.

To note the striking financial success of gays is hardly anti-gay propaganda. Indeed, gays themselves have used the same evidence in the pink pound and pink dollar movements. It is arguably pro-gay propaganda. Gays (and others) have earned their wealth and are entitled to it. I am not particularly critical of the rich, unlike some liberal members of Congress or the Occupy movement.

I believe all people, which of course includes all Jews and all Orthodox Jews, have every right to voice their opinions in the public square and influence votes accordingly based on their faith traditions, even as gays tell us that no valid political opinion should have a religious basis, that religion is a fairy tale, and that the book of Leviticus should be held in contempt and derision.

My arguments have been primarily about constitutional law, and I have never expressed hatred against gays. I have been libertarian as regards the law and private behavior. I have no particular objection to Civil Unions. It is the redefinition of marriage into a genderless institution that I object to, because it will hurt women. Women are not fungible with men. The country rejected the so-called ERA, and the arguments included maintaining protections for women.

Yet to degender marriage courts have applied the strict scrutiny standard as if gays were poor and powerless, like blacks under Jim Crow. This is counterfactual and hence bad law.

This is like the rich arguing for a flat tax since only a flat tax is equal. More tax cuts for the rich is not yet a popular notion. Indeed, some people hate the rich. I am waiting for the rich to turn that into a strict scrutiny argument, find a judge (who might even be rich) who favors a flat tax as the only equal tax, determine as matters of fact that the arguments against a flat tax are false and unconstitutional, and find a governor and attorney general that won’t appeal those findings so a higher court can’t reverse the “findings of fact,” and to deny others standing to appeal, even when a referendum overturns the court ruling. Sound familiar? No wonder the SCOTUS felt it necessary to take up the Prop 8 case when they could easily have picked another case.

Gays powerless? When they ask the California legislature to jump, the usual question is "how high?"