Reply #69: Let's go through it again, then.

[kiahzero]

Premise a: A public policy instituted for religious reasons is theocratic.
Premise b: An incoherent argument for public policy made by a politically savvy individual is rhetorical cover for a coherent policy, or is nonsense.
Premise c: There does not exist a coherent argument against marriage equality that does not depend on religious reasons.
Premise d: A politically savvy individual who intentionally makes nonsensical arguments not covered by premise b is an idiot.
Premise e: Wallis is a politically savvy individual.

1) Premise c, restated: For all arguments against marriage equality, if they do not depend on religious reasons, they are incoherent.
2) By 1 and b, for all incoherent arguments against marriage equality, the arguments are nonsense or are cover.
3) By 2, d, and e, if Wallis is making incoherent arguments against marriage equality without have an ulterior argument, he is an idiot.
4) By 1 and 2, if an incoherent argument against marriage equality is rhetorical cover for a coherent argument, the coherent argument must depend on religious reasons.
5) By 4 and a, if an incoherent argument against marriage equality is rhetorical cover for a coherent argument, the person making the argument must be arguing in favor of a theocratic rule.
6) By 1, 3, and 5, anyone arguing against marriage equality is either than idiot or arguing for a theocratic rule.