There was a similar argument for laws against interracial marriage as well - since no one was allowed to marry outside their race, it was argued, it was not discriminating against any one race. Everyone still had an equal right to marry someone, and all were equally limited to their own race. However, the California Supreme Court rejected this argument in the 1948 Perez v. Sharp decision, which is what the court used as precedent in the recent ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. It didn't matter that the law was not singling out any one race to discriminate against; simply having race as a limiting factor was considered an unreasonable restriction on the right to marry.
The Perez case described the "right to marry" as follows:
the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice
Just as a person cannot help that the one person they choose to marry is of a different race, some cannot help the fact that the one person they choose to marry is of the same gender. Limiting one's available choice for marriage based on gender should be considered, according to CA's equal protection statutes, just as discriminatory as limiting it based on race.
LOLCODE features keywords like these: can-has, gimmeh, hai, i-has-a, im-in-yr, im-outta-yr, kthxbye and
visible. My favourite example:
CAN HAS STDIO?
I HAS A VAR
IZ VAR BIGGER THAN 10 O RLY?
BTW this is true
VISIBLE "BIG NUMBER!"
BTW this is false
VISIBLE "LITTLE NUMBER!"