[bluntly_said]

No, his cognitive dissonance is that he claims to only want the word marriage for the rights, ignoring they are already present.

He then claims the because the rights aren't present, co-opting the word marriage is ok, because it's only to gain those rights.

He's essentially trying to force marriage to mean what he thinks it should, while expounding how terrible those who support prop-8 are when they do the same.

That's internal inconsistency. He rejects and demonizes one group for taking the same actions he is.

To Sum:

------

Prop-8 "Marriage is only between man and woman"

Karunamon: "Marriage is between any two adults"

Karunamon: "How dare they say marriage must mean that, it's not what I believe, they are bigots."

------

Rights are not involved, California offered equal rights to both groups. At best he can appeal that separate but equal is not a good state, and I agree with him there.