Which citizens do you consider to be unstable? It strikes me that this is simply a blanket condemnation that you have chosen to issue to justify your actions in the face of significant (though perhaps not majority or overwhelming)opposition. Also, the fact that you have selected a political party does not mean that the party should feel an automatic need or obligation to represent you. A case in point, without drawing any moral parallels, would be David Duke declaring for the Republican Party, which rightly rejected him, his policies and campaigned against him.
The only problem with the RNC mission statement is it's blatant exclusion of homosexuals as citizens who deserve to right to pursue life, liberty and happiness in the way that they see fit.
It would be nice if you would give specific examples so that we might debate those. Until the dabate takes place on that level, the discusion is on the level of 2 five year olds, "Did TOO!" "Did NOT!"
Also, the right to seek happiness in any way that they see fit leaves an awful lot of room for awful behavior. I don't think that you meant this seriously.
...how can you prevent me or anyone from entering into a contract with another sentient adult? That is what a marriage contract is right, a legal agreement between two sentient adults?
Actually, the government regulates contracts on a constant, daily basis. You are not free to perform brain surgery on a sentient individual regardless of your contractual status unless you are properly licensed by the state. You may not pactice law and, in some places, may not provide for-hire transportation. As you must acknowledge, this applies to a host of interactions. Society, via the state, has elected to regulate marriage.
Moving on from there and ignoring the religious principles for marriage for now, the state has an intrinsic responsiblity to choose marriage systems that it considers to be most effective in promoting the goals of the society that it represents. Obviously, the first responsibility would be to perpetuate the society. To that end, laws are formulated on many levels to provide encouragement of, and protection for, family organizations that are determined to be most stable. Throughout history, that system has been a traditional two parent family. Throughout history, the two parents have been composed of one male and one female. A very strong case is to be made that this is a result of biologic and genetic hard-wiring and not simply a convention of convenience. The simple fact is that this is the minimum grouping that allows reproduction and it is reasonable to infer the less complicated you build the system, the more likely it is to perform as designed. Two males without a female or the opposite are not a viable procreative family unit.
So now that we've removed the religous zealot arguements, we can at least have a civil discussion about the issue.
Pesonally, I find this obnoxious. The same poisoning of the atmosphere that you imply from others, you have actively injected into your own post. The other thought that struck me is that you seek to frame the arguement in the light that will be most favorable to you. By not recognizing the power of religion in shaping the moral, and hence, legal, regulation of society, you have devalued every tent of that society to worthlessness. Without those tenets, the society will cease to exist, either absorbed by another by force or degeneration to animalistic anarchy.
As far as sexual issues of Lincoln are concerned, I think it is a silly to hold an idol ont he hope that maybe he was gay. I might also note that Lincoln made 2nd clas citizens of non-entities. The distinction might be important to you. Frankly, the whole issue is irrelevant.