c.

Like Canada, the question of gay marriage relates to the state, not the church. For better or worse, the state is in the business of marriage, making marriage a legal and civil issue, not a moral one. Many things are legal that people would consider immoral, such as gambling, pornography, or alcohol. With that in mind, I do not see any legal reason to oppose gay marriage. Religions can continue to define marriage as narrowly or as broadly as they want and should continue to have freedom to perform ceremonies for people of their religion (for example, a non-consenting Muslim cleric should never be legally required to perform a ceremony for two men). The biblical understanding of marriage should not define the laws of the state—I’m sure neither of us would want to live in a country governed by strict Islamic law.

Lastly, marriage being an issue of the state, I think the legal argument for gay marriage does open the door to consider polygamy. This would challenge how the government treats the taxes for these groups people, but I’m certain we’ll see constitutional polygamy cases. That said, I think marrying plants, animals, or other items would never be considered legal, as none of these can be considered consenting.
Take care,
Leif

You are not impressed by them taking a stand as much as you are by the fact that they are using their power to support your warped thinking. Would you be as impressed if their suport went the other way? Maintaining the biblical and traditional definition of marriage does not take away gay peoples rights to co-habitation, etc. etc. and whatever else they want to do and legal rights they want to achieve as a committed couple. (BTW, does it have to be a couple? How about three or four or more and include the pets and call it marriage.)