You could turn down the inflammatory tone and condescention just a little. Marriage is not a privledge of citizens of the united states. Nice try, though. States regulate marriage. You complain about things like DOMA, but my point is that the gay community is bringing these things on themselves by trying to impose its will on the general population through legal manuvering, rather than working to change public opinion (a longer track, to be sure, but perhaps wiser). They are trying, and have been trying, to get one state to recognize gay marriage, so that they could then use another bit of the constitution that you haven't mentioned the "full faith and credit" clause, to force all the other states to recognize those marriages. Congress sees this, and because a majority of the electorate still isn't ready for gay marriage, you get things like DOMA. The gay community is trying to do a legal end run, and it's seen by many people in the non-gay community as just that. People tend to resent those kinds of manuvers and they can result in a backlash, as we are seeing. My point was and is that the gay community isn't doing itself any favors.
Your quoting the first amendment is similarly irrelevant. Nobody is denying the gay community freedom of speech, or assembly. There are no marriage laws in this country that require that you be of any particular faith, or of any faith at all, to be married, so the establishment clause isn't in any peril here, and nobody is denying them their right to petition. You want marriage to include gays. At this point in time, the majority of the electorate doesn't. That may change in time, but by going for the short term, "in your face" win, the gay community may end up saddling itself with the much larger task of getting state constitutions amended, a federal constitutional amendment repealed, and things like DOMA repealed. It's not smart.
I'm sorry that my assertion that it's about marriages offended you, but that is in fact what we are talking about.
There was a time in the not so distant past when women in this country could not vote. It took very dedicated women almost 100 years to convince men that they should be accorded that right, but eventually, they succeeded, and the constitution was amended. If, instead, they had tried some clever legal manuvering to force women's sufferage on men before a majority of the male population was ready to accept the idea, who knows what kinds of crazy defensive measures would have been passed to thwart them.
I can tell that you are very passionate about this issue. So much so that you can't even allow that thinking, enlightened, intelligent people can disagree about it. If one doesn't agree with your position, they are by definition a moron and a bigot. You are certainly entitled to think, that way, and behave accordingly, but don't expect it to further your cause. A small, opinionated, vocal, confrontational minority can browbeat a much larger group of people successfully to a point, but beyond that point things can get really dicey.
Take care of yourself.