Obviously this is going nowhere. You start off attacking Elizabeth because she wants to consider important principles like equality before the law, whereas you just say it's a bad law, and nothing else matters. Then when confronted with post offices you say other things matter. And you argue you're consistent because you disagree with marriage and post offices. You're switching the context. I'm arguing you're inconsistent because at first nothing matters except it's a bad law.
Well as I am sure you are aware, philosophy and politics are complex systems. I can't exactly write a 45 page essay on the issue in this forum to fully explain, and must try to best answer the questions as they arise.
Also, you miss the point entirely on equality before the law. You think being for equality before the law means being for every law.
Again, I will agree with you on one point: that this is going nowhere and this will be my last post on the matter. My position is fully explained. Second, you are off again with saying what I allegedly think: "You think being for equality before the law means being for every law." I never said I think that (if you infer its what I think you are incorrect). I never said you favored every law. But the matter of the fact is, you stated as simply and as clearly as possible that all bad law must be enforced equally. So while you may not be for the law, in principle, you are for it in its equal execution no matter how harmless or heinous the law may be (but while you are willing to admit you would support the harmless equality of bad law, you skirt around the issue of the heinous examples I list, and still refuse to answer). Because as you said yourself on many, many occasions, all laws MUST be enforced equally, no matter how minor or major.
The founding fathers of the US spent enormous amounts of effort trying to understand government, and trying to formulate principles that would keep the government in line. And you would trade it all away for a mere pittance. You're like the so-called libertarians who think that an absolute dictator by a libertarian would be the best way of gaining freedom. You ignore the structure of government, the motivations of the politicians, the culture, and everything else. In your tiny world, you can simply make choices based on whether it increases liberty in some small way no matter how temporary.
I fully understand the "motivations of politicians, the culture, and everything else" and such. The position I argue is philosophical. I can understand and accept what our founding fathers have done, what governments do, how culture and society is, and accept many other things while still holding philosophical objections. Politically, I might support civil unions if it were an improvement on what is currently being used (but the context in which it wants to be used now is not an improvement) and it is not discrimination, as I have fully noted.
As far as the "libertarian absolute dictator" comment I stated earlier my reasons for not voting for Harry Browne... which would have been as close to that as I can imagine.
I'm not impressed
The feeling is mutual.
In all seriousness though, I did enjoy this thread. I think that if we were both able to fully explain our stances, from the bottom up, we would come in agreeance and better understanding on some level. But the level of the debate is much to deep and complex to be discussed in this format.
Allright, time for the next debate!