As people are noticing, if you believe marriage is what it is despite what the government says you are now cast out amongst the racists.
Discrimination is critical to differentiation and differentiation is critical to life. Stem cells are basically free, it appears they decide things autonomously- but they decide based on what is around them. This is why your eye doesn't end up in your foot.
Modern law, especially the anti-discrimination kind, is akin the sort of stuff cancer does. Cancer cells don't differentiate very well. They just like to grow, and they'll do stuff like encourage blood vessel growth because they want nutrition. This would be good to remember next time you see government/society doing something good- maybe it is genuinely a good thing, maybe it's snaking a few more blood vessels through the dying host to redirect a little bit more stuff their way.
Most of these issues are based on an underlying assumption that fairness is a goal that is worth pursuing. Perhaps it is, but you have to be, in some sense, unfair in order to pursue it. There are a few people- like me- who can think abstractly enough to imagine a fair construct and then pursue it. There will not be equal outcomes, but there could be a genuine and logical attempt to keep all equal before my court. I was going to say 'before the law' but that opens up a need to explain more stuff since it certainly wouldn't be the law I just said was wrong and probably not law as most people are familiar with.
The masses, however, consistently emote. Especially among feminist and minority advocates. What actually happened matter significantly less than what they feel. Otherwise, how can you explain the 'black lives matter' movement, which appears to appeal for the sort of things that will increase death?
I am beginning to think that it doesn't mean what a person who wants to keep people alive would think it means, but instead it means the sort of thing Che Guevara might say, that they matter in service to the revolution. Che was always happy to kill another person for the revolution. He certainly thought it mattered. I suppose if he thought it didn't matter he might not shoot, but then again, he was a bloodthirsty bastard with a crap ideology, so he'd shoot anyway.
But the freedom we need, the demilitarization of the police, stopping these stupid wars, ending the tragedy of public school, and I could just keep adding clauses to this sentence to the end of time- none of these are spoken of by the progressives. What use is the grant of a right if, in granting that right, the government accrues to itself power it should never have? What shall be mis-defined next? Should love be redefined such that the poor, the sick, the suffering shoot be put out of their misery? Should, along with the confederate flag, wanting your down syndrome kid to live now be considered hate?