[The Urban Sombrero]

No that's not it. You are making moral arguments for legalizing sexual deviance which have been clearly condemned in scripture, and using the lesser authority of the Constitution to do so. Though our laws are based on the tenets of Christianity, the Constitution doesn't enjoy jurisdiction or adjudication over morality. Why? Because as you pointed out the foundations of morality are beyond the government which rests upon them. Thus because I know truth never collides with other truth, it is on its face obvious that men ought never pass laws that conflict with God's law on moral issues.

Therefore your continual advocacy on behalf of the homosexual using of all things, not only the good reputations of the founders but incredibly the name of our Lord, to me borders on blasphemy. But past all that, how a guy who claims a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ could spend all his time advocating for the abomination known as homosexuality escapes me.

If you cannot see that saying a man ought to be free to make choices in keeping with his conscience is not the same as agreeing with his choices, eh, that's ridiculous.

The civil government is presented with two consenting adults who desire the seal of marriage. The church is presented with two consenting adults who desire the seal of marriage. Both these adults are male. You say, TRT, that the state must hold this an abomination and deny. Upon what grounds? "Why, the Christian Bible, Sir," you say.

"So the State is to decide in accordance with what is revealed in the Bible?"

This line of reasoning, pursued, severely confuses secular and sacred government. And, logically followed to its end, has proven disastrous, if not monstrous, in human history.