Sure, fighting against legal recognition of homosexual "marriage" is tough, but it's doable. And there will always be enough people to stop the other nightmare "marriage" scenarios I listed if we put it to a vote. On the other hand, if your insane approach was tried now, we would immediately see homosexual "marriage", polygamous "marriage" and any other imagined kind of "marriage". That's not slouching towards Gomorrah, that's racing towards it!
Gubberment doesn’t define marriage. It doesn’t make anyone more or less married to have a piece of paper from the gubberment. Two gays calling themselves married are just as married with or without the gubberment’s permission, which is to say not at all married.
Freegards
No, I am NOT suggesting "surrender". I am suggesting that you can only win by assessing your position and relative strength, and developing a realistic strategy for winning. In short, using your head instead of your emotions. Brute force isn't going to work, when they outnumber you.
Sure, fighting against legal recognition of homosexual "marriage" is tough, but it's doable.
That's the point. It's NOT "doable" as you've outlined it -- you'll kill yourself just to put a band aid on it that isn't going to hold because in just a very few years, it's going to be ripped off by younger voters.
The only possible solution is to let politicians deal with a purely "legal contract" aspect of a partnership between two adults, and leave the concept of "marriage" out of it. That's for priests and the clergy.
If two gay guys find some online "church of the holy toaster" to marry them, I could care less -- as long as the government isn't forcing me to call what they have "a marriage".
But you are gambling it all -- and I am sorry if I think that handing marriage over to politicians is a textbook case of "casting pearls before swine"!
Ultimately, what I am suggesting here is the "separation of Church and State" in a way that actually benefits Church for a change.