I'm not following this

Maybe it's me. But Alan Sears latest screed on the dangers of opposing the Federal Marraige Amendment doesn't make much sense to me.

So, essentially, the argument in opposition to a federal marriage amendment comes down to this: sex trumps God.

Sex trumps religious liberty. Sex trumps the well-being of children. Sex trumps personal conscience.

Sex trumps the Constitution.

By forcing court-ordered same-sex “marriage” on the rest of us, political activists pushing the homosexual agenda will compel the great majority of American citizens and religious groups to ignore their deepest spiritual convictions, and effectively embrace—at the point of a legal shotgun—a homosexual definition of matrimony.

Hmmmm. Sears does understand that Heterosexual Christians aren't actually going to be required to participate in gay marriages, right? I mean if that was the plan, I'd be opposed to it too. But that's not the case.

Rather Sears seems to believe that two men or two women in another part of the city or the country formalizing their commitment to each other poses a threat to "religious liberty," "the well being of children" and "personal conscience." He might be overselling his case.

He then continues to argue that if homosexual marraige is allowed the next step is an end to religious liberty. If Gays are allowed to get married the door will be open for activist judges to shut down churches who do not choose to celebrate gay unions.

That doesn't seem all that likely in my mind.