On the other hand, I don’t expect, and wouldn’t like to see, a pro-amendment lawyer take such a cruel line of questioning in a courtroom.

When it is pointed out that some people, such as one of the plaintiffs, has been married (to a person of the other sex) even though that person now identifies as homosexual, the usual reply is something about the purity or the extremities of sexual attraction. No purely same-sex sexually attracted person would ever think to enter marriage; they would limit themselves to a same-sex arrangement.

And that talk of purity is analogous with racialist identity politics to which gay identity politics has figuratively twinned itself.

That is, SSM argumentation not only promotes segregation of the sexes — indeed treating the sexes as neutralized even in man-woman unions — but also promotes segregation of the sexual orientations. No mixed orientation marriages, for these are ‘shams’, they say. And shame people, they do.

Marriage does not organize society by sexual orientation. The SSMers are pressing that into the law.

“At what point did you realize you were a lesbian, Miss Birney?”

“Well, i guess it was after I realized I was a complete failure at loving men. After 3 failed marriages, you want to try something different right?”
(end spoof)