I say "activist" because the rational basis test was applied incorrectly. If you are citing experts (as this opinion does), you are doing it wrong. The rational basis test is simply supposed to determine whether there could be a rational justification for a law - i.e., it's not the job of the court to determine whether the legislature chose the right expert to believe.
As for your "treating people the same" bias, which people get treated the same? Gay people? People who prefer to marry their brother/sister? People who prefer not to buy health insurance? You haven't addressed this at all.
I have no idea why you believe I'm "freaked out" about gay sex. I really don't care what private acts consenting people choose to do. I just don't understand how one draws a line between gay sex and, for example, non-reproductive incest or unlicensed medicine. Nor do I understand how subsidizing preferences for straight marriage are illegitimate, but subsidizing preferences for immobility are legitimate.
You've certainly provided no such justification - it's not as if the 14'th amendment says sex preferences are protected, but risk preferences are not.
Clearly you haven't thought things through well enough to provide any explanation, so I'm signing off. Enjoy the moral posturing.
Well. Denied further fruits of your wisdom, I can at least console myself that you will surely educate the variety of federal judges who don't understand the law as deeply as you.
As for your "treating people the same" bias, which people get treated the same? Gay people? People who prefer to marry their brother/sister? People who prefer not to buy health insurance? You haven't addressed this at all.
I have no idea why you believe I'm "freaked out" about gay sex. I really don't care what private acts consenting people choose to do. I just don't understand how one draws a line between gay sex and, for example, non-reproductive incest or unlicensed medicine. Nor do I understand how subsidizing preferences for straight marriage are illegitimate, but subsidizing preferences for immobility are legitimate.
You've certainly provided no such justification - it's not as if the 14'th amendment says sex preferences are protected, but risk preferences are not.
Clearly you haven't thought things through well enough to provide any explanation, so I'm signing off. Enjoy the moral posturing.