The first amendment protects the people against a Federal establishment of religion and activity against religion.
So, it is perfectly fine for an organization to demand the govenerment stay out of asserting and funding social beleif structures of any one group upon the whole nation. That includes humanists. The government should stay out of funding any of it. The people are free to advocate their ideas in the states and communities.
I am going to blow your argument out of the water...
I trust you are aware of the “Full Faith and Credit” clause in the Constitution? How do you propose that a State defend itself against the recognition required by that clause, when a licensed “homosexual marriage” is granted in one State, and the two perverts decide to make themselves residents in a State that does not allow such a “union”?
You cannot escape the conflict created by your libertarian viewpoint. Morality is about absolutes that transcend petty arguments of state sovereignty.
You wish to place the Constitution in an amoral box, not understanding that it was designed to govern a moral people. What you fail to grasp is that at the time of the Constitution’s writing, none of the drafters would have imagined a circumstance where same-sex ‘marriage’ could ever be at issue, because they were men of moral conviction, as were most of their contemporaries.
Homosexual perversion is nothing new, but you refuse to deal with the absurdities presented by its amplification in our amoral-immoral culture; so rather than defend the common good and the truth, you choose to ignore their unrelenting voice, making States’ rights the issue. Burying your head in the sand will only guarantee the problem increases in scope and severity. I would rather fight on the side of right and risk all in this world, than be comfortable with the goats and loose all in the next.