RE: “Both recognition and suppression of homosexuality are essentially religious views with no place in government, while heterosexual marriage has secular, practical and universal exclusive bases, which I could go into explicit detail you would rarely find elsewhere.”
Let me see if I am reading you right here -are you suggesting religious views have no place in politics?
IF so -then who exactly makes the “this is a religious view to be censored” determination?
Further -last I looked Religion was protected by the Constitution while homosexual sex to be publically embtaced as normal and rewarded by society was not... In other words we the people can make laws that restrict things that are not God given and inalienable and or specifically guaranteed by the Constitution...
A while ago I posted a thing I wrote (I can’t find it of course but should re-do it anyway) about the two religions of the world. If the “non-religious” viewpoint is the only one allowed, it is essentially a religion, in the sense of being a system of belief. There are two systems of belief; one is based on the monotheist religions of the world with remarkably similar morals and values [leaving aside Islam for another discussion...], the other is atheism; or it could be called secularism or materialism.
Why should the atheist/secularist/materialist viewpoint be the standard, the default?
Only because they want it the standard. There is no foundation for that to be the standard in the history or founding documents of the US. In fact, there is history and documentation for the other - the religion based - viewpoint to be the standard default position.
And what is the result, or will be the result? A hell that even now is unthinkable. Meaning as bad as things are now, the extent of the hell is even beyond imagining.