So, we go from tolerance to a form of institutionalized intolerance.

In my view, Eich's freedom of speech was in fact stifled - because he was hounded from office for expressing it.

Now, if his espoused opinion (or donation in support of an opinion), had been something to the effect that "all black (or brown, yellow or brindled) are demonstrably inferior", then an horrendous opposing clamour would have been a totally legitimate response.

How can one's espousal of uncertainties about, or moral opposition to the concept of gay-marriage, be held to be one of virtual heresy?

It is my strong (and irreversible) conviction that traditional marriage has a rightly deserved and honoured place in human societal structure.

I am quite willing to be tolerant of alternative partnering arrangements in the interest of societal harmony, and to be tolerant of (or agreeable to) some family arrangements which do not accord to my concept of the traditional family.
However, there are limits to what I, as a responsible member of society, would willingly accept as being in the constructive best interests of society as a whole.

Where I can agree that the recognition of same-sex unions is arguably in the interest of societal harmony, I can absolutely not agree that such unions should, for all purposes, be considered to be the same as, and in all respects equal to, traditional marriage of one man to one woman.

Moves to erode and diminish the value and place of traditional marriage in our society, by irrationally and unnecessarily expanding the concept of marriage to include a variety of non-traditional arrangements, can in my view only be detrimental to societal structure as a whole, and a potential threat to our general concepts of societal responsibility and morality.

Tolerance has its limits, and undue expansion of libertarian attitudes to social responsibility can only serve to alienate a portion of humanity, both at home and abroad, and I fail to see any upside.
Libertarian Western society is looking evermore like the 'court jester', but I don't see traditional societies clapping.

Yuyutso, correct, but you left the most important one out of your post,

If you want to have Voluntary euthanasia through severe pain and loss of dignity and death is imminent,, then you should be able to do just that without Government interference

Saltpetre,

Eich's freedom of speech was not effected. I would acknowledge, however, that his sense of ability to express his views openly (at least after this event) would have been effected. But the same goes for any view that society deems distasteful. Someone opposed to interracial marriage would likely feel uncomfortable in expressing their views, too, because of the potential backlash. That's progress.

<<Now, if his espoused opinion (or donation in support of an opinion), had been something to the effect that "all black (or brown, yellow or brindled) are demonstrably inferior", then an horrendous opposing clamour would have been a totally legitimate response.>>

You make it sound as if there is something intrinsically different between the two forms of discrimination (yet the only difference that I can see between racism and the opposition to gay marriage is the severity - both discriminate against a group for who they are, and cannot help being). Part of how you do this is by appealing to tradition, yet I somewhat discredited this earlier. Tradition is a fluid concept as is the identity of any given society.

You also speak of the moral standards of some, yet these all either appeal to the supernatural (a concept that may be dismissed as easily as it is asserted), or assert spurious associations like the demonstrably false ones that Old Man proffered. It may go against the moral sensibilities of some to allow interracial marriage too (as it once did for Christians), but until someone can present a rational reason as to why either form of marriage is immoral and should not be allowed, these opinions will continue to be dismissed as bigoted.

Just look at your friends butt does it really come to mind how cute it is ? Nope
Poofs have a mental problem one day will be a pill to fix it and as for letting homo's raise children forget there sick, And don't anyone tell me Im homophobic I'm not the one with a problem , They make me sick I see them on TV and change the channel. Keep it to your own homes don't force it on everyone else.
These where my thought's on this subject until a friend pointed out it is only Natures way of controlling population. So as long as they are discreet I don't care anymore but don't force me to watch it.Gay marriage noway.

'It may go against the moral sensibilities of some to allow interracial marriage too (as it once did for Christians), but until someone can present a rational reason as to why either form of marriage is immoral and should not be allowed, these opinions will continue to be dismissed as bigoted. '

unless of course its among indigeneous tribes today where it is still frowned upon and punished severely in some areas in Australia. The evolutionist of course would of taught that you were marrying a monkey. Something that AJ would be happy to ignore.

Yeah well, on that subject this video may be of some use,nobody wants their child to grow up to be Gay and nobody wants their kids to marry out, as Tommy Sotomayor points out it's a perfectly reasonble position to take. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtwCPXC_Pj0
There's a reason so few people marry out just like there's a reason so few people choose same sex marriage even when it's available.
Gay relationships like interracial pairings are far less stable than mainstream relationships, something like 80% of White woman/Black man marriages in the U.S end in failure, in both cases it's a rough life, nobody wants their kids to struggle every day and know little but stress and unhappiness.