The Thursday letters are too dull, but I shall begin the month by addressing the Tuesday writer who wondered about seating same-sexers together at her wedding.
First, I wish the LW had been specific. We do not know anything about these guests other than that they are same-sexers. The letter appears to read as if they are all of the same gender and there could be a little side matchmaking going on, but that's just a guess. We don't know if these are desired guests or obligatory guests. One can usually base a table assignment for one's long-time best friend, even from years ago, on knowledge a good deal more intimate than one can for a cousin one has seen three or four times and with whom the exchanges have never gone beyond a few sentences. We don't know the overall tone of the room. All we can do is guess from what the editors allowed to appear of the LW's question. As the LW did not specify an opposite-sex wedding, I am going to guess that the LW is one of those people who takes pride in being a little more completely gay-accepting than is actually the case, or at least is not quite so affirmatively same-sexer-positive as might be desired by the same-sexer guests who aren't saying so.
The Prudecutor reacts in horror at the thought of gay people being allowed to sit together. Typically for someone who likes to pretend at being same-sexer-positive, she takes the LW's "gay table" as THE ONLY POSSIBLE OPTION TO CONSIDER and accordingly advises that each of the same-sexer singles and couples be carefully separated in the supposed name of orientation-blindness, which seems to be the latest fashionable accessory among people with unattractive minds (spurred on, I admit, by many of the leading Overassimilationists.
While creating an Obviously Gay Table will appear to be something rather less warmhearted than it apparently is, assuming good will on the LW's part, it seems safe to provide a small rule that, unless it's someone one knows really well and can rest assured that (s)he will be happy with the placement, never to maroon a single same-sexer at a table with no other same-sexers. One can get away fairly often with marooning a couple, as they at least show up with some built-in bulwark against being at a mismatched table, and couples often have more bond-producing similarities in lifestyle with other couples than with other same-sexers. If possible, I'd advise the LW to make the most fun tables about an even mix of same-sexers and the most fun and progressive of the heterosexuals.
After all, it wouldn't be Homocentric August without its going without saying that the same-sexer guests will be right at the top of the Fun Guests List.