""Um, I actually agree with that, for the most part"
Thanks for admitting it, one of the frustrating things about most libertarians is their complete dishonesty and evasiveness, it is rare to have one speak openly.
Why not -- I believe that:
(a) the law should be blind,
(b) the law should be equitable,
(c) that people are, at their core, free-willed individuals, and
(d) that exercise of that will (c) will be rewarded/punished...
(e) the government does have the authority to punish evil doers [abuse of (D)], but
(f) it [government] is not free to [re]define good and evil as it has been doing (and will continue to do).
I also believe it's the height of stupidity to give the federal government the authority to allow a definition of marriage, precisely for the reason I gave, once they have that power someone will [ab]use that power to [re]define marriage. -- The whole "homosexual marriage" issue is therefore best recognized as a win-win for the statists: if you are able to prevent homosexual marriage then you have acknowledged the state's power over it, and therefore all they have to do is gain those positions in the state, or you fail and they pass it anyway (thus proving that the state has such power).
PS -- thanks for cutting off all the explanatory portion. [/sarc]