From an unrelated post at Powerline, I came across this quote. It is contained within a message from George Mason University Law School Dean Daniel Polsby to a student reporter at the Harvard Crimson:
I do hope that next time the Crimson covers the gay marriage issue, you will see fit to point out that gays are demanding an exception to the marriage law that generally applies to everyone else. That law says you can get married if: (1) you are of age, (2) are not married and (3) can find someone of the opposite sex who wants to marry you. Applies with perfect neutrality, irrespective of sexual orientation don’t you see.
No, I don’t "see". How can a law which allows marriage only if you "find someone of the opposite sex" be perfectly neutral on the issue of sexual orientation? It is very specifically and intentially NOT being neutral on the issue of sexual orientation.
Sure, the law is neutral with respect to sex (i.e., gender), but that’s a different matter altogether from sexual orientation. Could it be that the Dean of the George Mason University Law School is too stupid to know the difference?