According to some people, the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution really just "rewards" or treats the government gives different groups for acting in ways it deems "beneficial."

It's interesting how convoluted peoples' arguments get when they try to justify their opposition to other people's rights. That is, this guy can think of all kinds of ways his own marriage benefits society, but feels that gays must somehow provide proof that our families are "beneficial" before we can be given equal rights.

If this were so, then to whom can gays apply to provide such proof? Is there some kind of committee? Or is Dave Argyle volunteering to be the judge of my family's "merit?"

If so, I volunteer to judge his merit. Who knows? Perhaps some of the rights he enjoys really aren't as "beneficial" to society as he thinks they are.

On the other hand, I'd rather just live and let live. He can enjoy his constitutional rights--but, by the same token, I expect him to respect mine.

And, for that matter, "merit" has never been the basis of rights. Even serial killers and crooked bank managers--who provide little or no benefit to society--are assumed to have equal rights under the law. So, I suppose, even homophobes should be allowed those same rights.