Since we can't zot the libertarians in real life who want to run the Republican Party, let's try to get some debating practice here in cyberspace and learn more about how to effectively argue against those people in the real world outside cyberspace.
Kudos for seeing beyond the zot mentality! Zotting has is place, but when taken to extremes has the effect you note of hampering FReepers' effectiveness in the real world.
I note for the record that I'm against same-sex "marriage" - but also against froth-flecked screeds against libertarianism (which IMO is less of a threat to marriage that GOP-e squishiness).
This might all be a blessing in disquise.
First, it seems to me that Christians should now come out in favor of canceling all preferences, especially to include tax preferences granted “married” people. After all, why should a single person be denied a tax break granted either when living or dead? It’s not as if cousins, friends, and associates can’t be dear friends, since we’re defining “marriage” as “who do you love”.
Give it to everyone or deny it to everyone. The same with visitation, inheritance, etc. privileges.
Give them to everyone or deny them to everyone.
Step Two, Stop getting “marriage licenses”.
Step Three, Instead, be united in your church in a “Service of Holy Matrimony”. The word “matrimony” itself derives from “mater (mother) + “monium (state of)”. We would be talking about couple living in a Holy union with the potential of protected motherhood.
Churches must develop this language because it specifically mentions “mothers” and they must swear off the state in this. Give to Caesar what’s Caesar’s. Were the believing churches able to recognize other legitimate matrimonials, that unity would be a large sign to the culture.
Step Four, inquire of lawyers how to best arrange the necessary contracts that will provide all protections that secular marriage now provides.