Couple of points or questions just of the bat of this post here.
Am I right in saying that the first paragraph indicates that civil marriages, state marriages, and religious ceremonies, church marriages will be seperate? So that churches WILL lawfully continue to maintain the illegitimacy of "marriage" between anything other than a man and woman?
Do you think that gay rights campaigners will be satisfied with that?
The first part appears at odds with the second part, you suggest that irrespective of private opinion, lets say private conscience, that if the government sanctions something there is no space for opposition, to directly quote you:
I have no choice but to accept that
Is that what the gay rights agenda is about? Using state power to eradicate any choice about accepting homosexuality as norms and mores?
I mean, I've always suspected this, it would be great if you could clear up with a simple yes or no if this is what you're saying. I dont see any other way that could be construed to be perfectly frank.