Not to mention the fact the he bans gay people from leaving comments on his blog.

I hate to get too technical about old Usenet conventions (Such a lie. I revel in it.), but Godwin's Law is definitely not restricted to mention of Hitler. It refers to Nazis or Hitler. Whether neo-Nazis really count is open to debate, but let's be accurate about something so well-documented.

Relatedly, I think your comments section suffers from your hypercriticism. If you want strict standards for accuracy, maybe you should be equally tough on those on your side. "Volokh is one of the most prominent anti-gay bigots out there"? Whatever evil one suspects him of harboring in his secret heart, Volokh is not explicitly anti-gay. Dozens of much more famous and influential people are.

Also: here's a grain of salt. Take my opinion with it.

Sorry you feel that way about what I assume to be 99% of your viewers. But at least you get to feel elitist and superior, so you do have that going for you.

[Kip replies: 99% of my viewers were not invited to be guest bloggers on Volokh's site as supposed "experts" on same-sex marriage.

This is not about you ("Who's being elitist and superior, Kaye?"), it's about Maggie Gallagher.]

Can someone explain why "straight" people who focus so much of their energy on condemning gay people and making sure that they are treated as second class citizens within the law are also the same people who are adamant that they are not a) a bigot, b) a homophobe, c) a closeted homosexual, or d) all of the above.

I wonder if members of the KKK get upset when people call them racist? I would be willing to bet a lot of money that they ARE offended by such statements. They probably say something like "How dare you call me a racist? I'm not anti-black, I just think it's against the Bible for the races to inter-mingle…."

Can someone explain why many gay rights advocate insist on attacking opposing positions by asserting that anyone who doesn't share their views must be a) a bigot, b) a homophobe, c) a closeted homosexual, or d) all of the above.

Isn't it possible that someone simply disagrees with your policy without being a horrible person? Or is it easier to call people names?

[Kip replies: Since I'm only referring to Gallagher, who has a very long paper trail of anti-gay commentary, and not "anyone who doesn't share my values," I have no answer to give you. Don't fault me for something I'm not even doing.]

[Kip replies: I did not call her an Ohio Nazi. When you evidence a failure to read the actual post, your credibility goes down to zero (oh, sorry -- "ZERO").]

Sounds like a closet case to me. Volokh is a self-loathing gay person and he needs to be outed.

[Kip replies: Godwin's law requires an analogy to Hitler, which I did not make. I cited a quite recent, quite analogous news story.

Under what circumstances do we get to invoke a "Meta-Godwin's Law," in which people race to draw false analogies to Godwin's Law itself?]

The introduction of Nazis into any debate tends to quickly move it outside the realm of rational discussion, so either way your choice of words could have been better.

[Kip replies: Given how bizarre Volokh's comment is, shouldn't you be asking him for the clarification and not me?]