[TheRealThing]

⬆⬆ For me, what is sovereign is Christ, ultimate revelation of the Father. And though I have walked out of his will at times, it was never the government that forced me to. In the United States, I have lived out my faith untroubled and unfettered, free from threat of physical violence. I pray in secret, as instructed, and my prayer closet has never been violated. I meet together with likeminded believers, and my place of meeting has never been forbidden. My freedom of conscience has never been hindered. For that I give thanks, and am very wary of anyone, no matter how well intended, who would violate freedom of conscience to any American, as the freedoms I enjoy are only as assured and safe as those of my neighbor. And we all know who Christ taught us to view as neighbor.

And under Christ, what is our responsibility to our neighbor who is overtaken in a lifestyle that we both know precludes him from any hope of God's forgiveness? Knowing only the blood of Christ will wash away, or cover our sin at the judgment, are we just supposed to give them a figurative pat on the head and embrace such as our equal in God's eyes? Or are we supposed to point them to the cross or, and I'll borrow your reference for this one, help them to look up at the serpent on the staff and live? But your argument would more aptly be presented in Sunday School than in trying to base pursuit of happiness legislation upon.

The practices you described, are all acts which are protected under the freedom of religion clauses of the first amendment. Any thing, or extrapolation past that construct is a literal house of cards. To say man's law is higher than God's law was never the framer's intention. I guarantee if there were anything to the idiom, George, Thomas, James and friends, would all turn over in their graves every time some self absorbed judge or lawmaker took steps to overrule God's Word.

We can establish punishment for crimes against society, and we should. But only the supremely arrogant would dare to repeal DADT, (which BTW was a compromise conceived in deference to God's Word to give the homosexual a kind of social buffer). And then continue to dream up and pass ever expanding legislation while at the same time, declaring people suffering from that sexual deviancy, as is so clearly defined in Scripture, a protected class under the US Constitution. You asked an absurdly rhetorical question earlier; would I under the US Constitution disallow adultery? Answer; Nope it's none of my business, nor is another man's bent for homosexuality. Still it would make no more sense then, to declare adulterers a protected class and carve out special rights for them backed up by federal legislation, than it does having done so for homosexuals. One is God's purview, one is man's,