Ivy, to be fairly direct, it seems you're hiding your prejudice behind your fairly articulate "defence of the constitution". Most, if not all religions (yours included) teach that homosexuality is a sin and that is the real undertone of your comments, I feel. And the real issue is that most religions feel the need, indeed are commanded, to spread their particular line of faith to anyone that'll listen, and also to most that don't want to. This itself is inherently wrong and offensive to a lot of people. What makes it more offensive is that the faith doctrine is then mixed in with the constitution, as if that gives it some vicarious credibility.

Scriptures can only truly be understood if you have faith?? Thats a great get out clause! Ill right that on my next tax return! I must have not understood correctly ( because of my lack of faith), the teachings of the LDS doctrine that, until relatively recently, being black was a genuine curse from god. Its obviously easy to go on and on with many other examples across all religions which are usually explained away as being "taken out of context" or "misinterpreted" but its all wearing a bit thin and makes anyone else not of faith fairly reasonably suspicious about what other thoughts and aspirations religion has in store for us all.

How can anyone of faith be taken seriously to preach on civil rights, aside from the crazy doctrines? Yes, you speak eloquently and put forward some reasoned points but then go on to mention as some sort of proof "eye witnesses" who were present during some fairly dubious events -which even most religions cant even agree on- over 2000 years ago as if you've just spoken to them-it just removes all credibility. Even in todays age of instant media communication, I wouldn't base my entire judgment of a situation on an eye witness statement, let alone let it influence my entire life and persuade me to tell everyone else I was right because of it.