Maybe because I'm fifty, but I remember a lot of opposition to civil unions for gays before they started asking for marriage.

Advocating that American Muslims be treated like other Americans is not the same thing as advocating Islam.

Some of those weren't good examples to use. Nairobi, for instance, where the mingling of evangelical Christian beliefs with native ones has had some unfortunate results. Valid point that objection to same sex marriage isn't solely a product of the Abrahamic faiths.

Good point. The church's have no such power, the only political power they have in America is the collective power of their membership. They can try to influence the government on such matters, but so can anyone else. And it's their right to refuse to marry anyone.

Your statement is not without merit, however a contract between three or more people is necessarily a different contract than one between two. Advocates of same sex marriage are asking for same sex couple to have the same legal standing as heterosexual couples if they get married. It will not be possible to do that with polygamy, a new and different type of contract would be necessary.

Well, you know, Jefferson and Madison were sloppy writers, they probably left the 'a' out by accident. It's not like they wrangled over every phrase...oh, wait. Never mind.

I agree that it's every American's right to inform their votes with their values, religous or not.

Marriage is not an office. Legally, it's a contract.

That's what gays asked for in the first place, about twenty years ago. I think if their reasonable request had been accommodated then, it wouldn't be such an issue now.

Only matters if it comes to a veto.