This is an interesting take Charles, thank you for your response. While I agree with many of your points about the confusing and seemingly contradictory views of my lunch companion (not my co-worker, I should clarify) I would disagree with some of the ways in which people generally are being categorized in your response.

My lunch companion made no mention of “outcasts, sinners, abominations” as you put it — and did not appear to believe that to be the case. Perhaps you are assuming that because I mentioned he is religious? I would sincerely be curious to know why that was assumed about him.

Those kind of assumptions are a problem, just as much as him assuming who you are because of your sexuality. What he expressed is an opinion on the equal treatment question as a matter of law. Hopefully my original article was a fair representation and communicated the facts, I do not claim to have any insight into his or your mind beyond what I have read here.

My point is that the rights of all people are worth protecting. Both his and yours. He can be religious, you can be gay. Neither needs to exert power over the other. Conservatives, liberals, homosexual individuals, heterosexual individuals are all deserving of human decency and equal protection under the law.

I won’t belabor the point, but I also disagree that this is a partisan political issue. I am not a fan of Donald Trump, I am not a fan of Barack Obama. They are just faces of ideologies that pick and choose winners and losers in our society. That is not to say that I begrudge anyone for voting for either, as I seek no claim on your ability to make decisions. The only way one or the other political party could truly impress me on this issue, would be by removing government entirely from marriage.