"This is why Romney is the perfect candidate for them." <-- not "him".

I agree with you that the overwhelming majority of politicians are huge hypocrites but I disagree with you on one thing. There is no mention of "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution. The part of the amendment referring to religion reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In this book, Lampo points out that the writers of the Constitution purposely included the term "religious freedom" and also purposely excluded the words "God" and "Bible" despite their. Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers, did write the words: "a wall of separation between church and state," while writing about the writing of the Constitution. This statement is a part of American History as are the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers are frequently used to understand the conversational environment of that time period. And in the book, The Godless Constitution, the scholarly writers point out that our fourth President James Madison who was one of the chief architects of the Constitution argued that "religious beliefs are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction." (these notes are taken directly from the text of this book.)

Lets talk about these ideas.

(insert) ...despite their widely held Christian views.

Kenneth: Technically, as in word for word? yes.

Thomas Jefferson himself established this as a principle of the first Amendment in 1802 here:
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

In it, its noted:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Now, in the view of the US Supreme Court all throughout history, this was interpreted to go both ways and be absolute.
Nothing in the Constitution prevents anyone - you, me, Mark, or anyone, from VOTING in elections based on our religious leanings. However, refusing to treat gays/lesbians as equals in the eyes of the law- based solely on religious principles-in my view violates Thomas Jefferson's intentions in this 1802 speech to a small sect of baptists in Danbury Connecticut.

Simply put - refusing to allow same sex marriage, and give them the same rights in the eyes of the law - is a violation of the First Amendment. Repressing same sex marriage in the eyes of government is indeed establishing religion.

Idiot.

Unfortunately, most religious people have difficulty arguing against gay marriage because they are told their religion must be kept separate from politics. This couldn't be further from the truth. We as citizens have a right to argue against something politically based on moral grounds. Some like yourself Mark, believe that homosexuality is a good and moral practice and you have the right to argue in favor of our government rewarding this behavior. Others like myself, have the same right in arguing that homosexuality is not a good and moral and that our government has no role in rewarding and promoting it.
Civil marriage is a legal idea, but legal ideas are based off of the morality of those who put those laws in place including the founders of this country.

Kenneth, here's what you seem to be misunderstanding: homosexuality is not a practice, it is a state of being, like heterosexuality, gender, ethnicity, etc. Being gay, or female, or black is not a practice that religious people can morally object to. You cannot argue against another person's existence, even if you feel "superior" to those other types of people. Allowing equal rights to gay, female, or black people is not a reward - they are defined in our constitution as being inalienable. The rights themselves have had to be defined over the years, but the rights are inherent in our culture. This fight to deny gay people the right to enter into a civil marriage is not a fight that can be justified through one's religious beliefs nor through constitutionality. It is a fight by the majority to keep minority classes of people inferior to themselves, as it's always been for civil rights issues in the past. If you really feel that "homosexuality is not [...] good and moral and that our government has no role in rewarding and promoting it," you clearly have no understanding of the concept of morality. Morality is knowing the "right and wrong" decisions in a case of action or intention. Scientific evidence of homosexuality being neither destructive nor the result of mental illness is widespread, and even shows that it is beneficial for homosexuals to identify as such. And one cannot decide, nor act, nor intend to be gay. A person can only choose to lie about it, which is immoral.