But my update:
Several months ago, I posted about Tanya Lee and Joshua from eHarmony. I postulated they were probably far-right Jesus-freak whackos, and Joshua's flaunted assets in the trousers department notwithstanding, they waited till marriage to get it aaawwhhhn.
And I was right.
One of them -- presumably the male -- writes thus:
Marriage is a biblical union under God that happens to be recognized by our government. It is not subject to amendments. I believe that it would be right of our government to offer some sort of union benefit to those who wish to join their lives in a same-sex union. However, this does not mean that the government has any right to step into the church and redefine "marriage". The separation between church and state is not to keep the beliefs of the church out of our governing systems. Instead is to keep the governing systems out of the church. ...
This is not about rights as a citizen of the United States of America. This is about whether we as a country have the audacity to ammend the Bible. "Marriage" is not the term to be used in homosexual unions. This is not ever been defined in the Bible as such. Thus it is not the place or right of my government to change that. In order to keep separate as so many have suggested the church and the state, we must fundamentally re-examine the suggestions being purposed. (Reported via this site.)
Great stuff, huh? "It's not about rights"? "The separation between church and state is not to keep the beliefs of the church out of our governing systems"? I personally like the idea that American law is somehow subject to the law of god, yet nobody who crafted it, practiced it or commented on it at the time ever mentioned that.
I guess Alexander Hamilton was quite right when he said "We forgot."