Reply #83: You're misstating my argument

[kiahzero]

I'm not saying Wallis is theocratic because a theocratic government would be against marriage equality and he's against marriage equality. I'm saying he's theocratic because he's using theocratic reasoning to support his position on marriage equality. Similarly, while Bush is not an autocrat, his reasoning about the unitary executive is certainly autocratic.

Tradition, culture, and simply one's personal old definition of what a marriage is, as being between a man and a woman, are enough for that opposition.

Wrong. The rights guaranteed in the Constitution may not be circumvented simply because of "tradition, culture, or simply one's personal old definitions." You're right that people's personal opinions can be irrational or incoherent, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about legal reasoning.

The concept that a marriage can between persons of the same sex is very new

This is wrong too. If you have access to the Virginia Law Review through JSTOR or something similar, check out Eskridge's article, "A History of Same-Sex Marriage."