I think the majority of people against gay marriage have those views because of their religious beliefs. Even though I do not think separation between church and state actually exists because religion shapes who you are, you morals and values. That is why the court needs to step in because imposing the values of one religion (all religions included) on the entire country is wrong.
I think the courts need step in when the majority will prohibit someone from pursuing Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. If the majority got its way interracial marriage would be prohibited in some places and schools would be segregated.
Even though there are sociological arguments that can be made against gay marriage, that many are against it because of religious reasons is beside the point. There is no Constitutional support for it. No more so than there is for abortion. But corrupt, activist judges have twisted the original intent and meaning of "right to privacy" and "equal protection under the law" in order to legalize these things. Everything not expressly written in the Constitution as being part of the federal government's jurisdiction belongs to the individual states. That includes gay marriage and abortion. But the liberals, for all their talk about public opinions changing in their favor, know they would lose in the court of public opinion. In fact, they did lose in most of the states when it came to gay marriage and that's why they chose to force their agenda through the courts just like they did abortion years before. It all comes back to so called "rights" they claim they have but is not given to them in the Constitution or anywhere else.
Luke 6:37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
That's an unfortunately bad translation of the New Testament that secular liberals especially love to quote. No judgement means everything is OK and they can't be called into question about the things they support.
Of course, God knows we have to make judgement every day of one kind or another. The correct scripture reads: "Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment."
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16- Stoning to death if you use the lords name in vain
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24- Rape victim should be stoned if they don't yell loud enough
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21- Should be stoned if you disobey your parents
The Bible is full of out dated ideas, we shouldn't pick and choose which ones are still valid since we are not "God" and therefore prone to error.
Secular liberals also love to cite passages in the Old Testament, which seem harsh and archaic, in order to call all of scripture into question.
Those of us, and unfortunately that doesn't include many Christians themselves, who understand the Bible know there is no need to "pick and choose." The Jehovah of the Old Testament, who gave the harsh laws you posted above, is the very same Jesus in the New Testament.
Many ask, How can that be?, as they seem so different. The Lord originally intended to give the Israelites the fullness of the Gospel (found on the original stone tablets that Moses later broke upon discovering their rebellion). Thereafter, with the Israelites having proven they were not ready to live the fulness of the Gospel, were given the lower law - known as the Law of Moses - and had to wander in the wilderness for 40 years before finally entering the Promised Land.
The Law of Moses was a strict law, one set up for a theocracy where the Lord was their King. Thus, something like blasphemy, for instance, was the same as treason under our law and punishable by death. The examples you gave above may seem harsh but they were only carried out only if the offender refused to repent. It's not like an adulterer or disobedient son was immediately taken outside the city and stoned.
You say these things are "out dated," and that's true, but it's not due to the reason you're assuming. They are outdated because the same God who gave those laws later came down as a man and gave the higher law or the fulness of the Gospel, which fulfilled, transcended, and superseded the lower law.
Many, including secular liberals, take more of a liking to what they read in the New Testament, finding it easier to stomach and easier to live. In reality, the higher law is such because it requires far more obedience. For instance, no longer were you commanded simply to not to commit adultery. Now, to even lust after a woman is already committing adultery in your heart. No longer were you commanded to just not kill. To even be angry with your brother put you in danger of God's judgement. And so on.
