There are some things that, as a Christian, I find most revolting to my sensibilities. And yet I must tolerate their existence, for they exist only because God has made it possible. I also am only too painfully aware that it is within this same realm that I am who I am. This realm is the freedom of choice - a God-given right. I demand my right, who am I to deny someone else his right?
A proper constitution is predicated on these rights and freedoms. It seeks to create a framework within which we can exist as a community where we enjoy equal rights and freedoms. Laws should protect the fundamental rights of an individual to act within his God-given freedom of choice, while limiting such actions as would infringe on another person's rights. This is a function of government, not of the church, yet the church operates on much higher principles, which would often mean that it would not extend its activities to the limit of the laws of the land. Its jurisdiction extends only so far as persons choose to accept its teaching. This is as God would have it. The church's primary function is to preach the gospel for a witness. It informs the world of God's ideals and persuades people to accept. It does not seek to achieve its goals through legislation.
Unless an action can be proved to have an undesirable effect on another uninvolved individual, it should remain within the purview of the actor to decide. If knowledge of the activity comes to light, then the church may reserve the right to take what it deems as appropriate action to censure the activity, as it may be contrary to a vow the individual may have made. If the individual finds nothing wrong then he may persuade the church to change its position. If the church will not change, then the individual needs to move along and find a church that supports the activity, or start one's own congregation.
My reading of the Bible makes the practice of homosexuality wrong. It in no way supports same-sex marriage. The biblical definition of marriage is the legal union of a man and woman. Secular definitions are not required of opposite sexes for a marriage to occur. In fact, marriage has been used to describe many non-human unions. During the 1970s in Jamaica there was a high incidence of goods being married, due to severe shortages of major staple goods.
It is common knowledge that words and their definitions are like formulae that can be applied to a vast array of situations with the principle remaining the same. Of course, for each situation the implications are not necessarily the same. And while I would not lose my sleep if the word marriage is used to describe the union of two persons of the same sex, I'm concerned about the issue of children and the implications of not enjoying the benefit of being trained by both sexes. And except in the case of death, should having access to both sexes be a right of children?