Just to shake things up a little, and not directing this question at anyone in particular, but why are we willing to defend WBC's rights to demonstrate/free speech, but we aren't willing to defend a gay couple's right to Civil Union? Or, to put it another way, we don't want laws against WBC because it could erode our freedoms, but we do against gay marriage because....it won't?
From what I've seen, for the most part, the discussion so far has been civil and productive. I would like to see it stay that way, with people explaining the logic or rationale behind their thinking on the matter. Show me where my thinking is wrong, if it is.
ETA: It seems that we are willing to draw the line in some instances but not in others. Why? Wouldn't the same arguments apply in one instance as in the other?