Nope. Robin Smith is saying what she thinks, and audaciously ascribing it to God. There are a lot of different opinions about what various interpretations of God supposedly think.
Does Robin Smith support all the laws found in the Bible or just the ones that conform to her prejudices? Does she want to ban divorce?
Robin Smith is a monster.
She would deny legal status to millions of happy families that already exist, and that will exist in the future, in order to force innocent strangers to conform to her irrational, hateful religious beliefs.
She wants to do that because happy, productive, functional families that don't conform to her bigoted views threaten to cast doubt on those views. That's what she fears.
If gay marriages lead to polygamy, then why don't straight marriages lead to polygamy? Indeed, most of the marriages portrayed in Ms Smith's beloved book are polygamous.
Fortunately we live in a free country, not a Christian theocracy. We don't have to impose silly biblical laws like the one requiring widows to marry their brothers-in-law, or rape victims their rapists, or the one that requires women to sleep in a tent in the back yard during menstruation.
There is no rational, secular reason for gays not to marry. Gay marriage doesn't harm kids, doesn't harm straight people, and doesn't harm "marriage." It might make hysterical bigots feel foolish though, when their doomsday visions don't materialize.
It's telling that Ms Smith has to lie about homosexuality being a choice in order to feel less bad about the results of her ugly bigotry. She claims she has no authority to redefine God's truth. How about she stop trying to redefine other peoples'?
Around half of human embryos die naturally. Usually a woman doesn't even know - she just thinks her period was a few days late.
What kind of god would magically inject "souls" into so many doomed little embryos and then kill them?
Should the nation throw its resources into preventing this holocaust in our midst? Must we save every embryo, because each is one of 'em is a "person?"
Or is personhood a product of the mind, an activity of the brain, which is an organ that develops gradually? If personhood comes into being gradually, shouldn't our laws reflect that?
But, that doesn't satisfy the kind of absolutists who can only relate to the world in black and white, the kind of people who become fundamentalists, because phony authority is easier than actual thought.
Humans were marrying and propagating long before Hebrew tribalists invented Jehovah. We have Chinese, Sumerian, and Egyptian documentation of this.
How does gay marriage prevent you or anyone from propagating?
Why should other people be bound by law to obey your religious beliefs?
Opponents of gay marriage stupidly claim it violates their rights.
Gay people should not come into your church and tell you how to pray. Nobody is proposing that.
But if you want to run a business, you've got to abide by the rules. You have to obey safety regulations. You have to pay taxes. You can't discriminate against people based on race. And you shouldn't discriminate against gay people.
Those who claim their "moral" principles should allow them to refuse business transactions with gay people are just wrong. You shouldn't impose your prejudices, kooky religious ideas or bronze age morality on strangers trying to book a room, buy a cake, or get a job.
Keep that bigotry in your church where it belongs.
Tea baggers make Libertarians cringe, Democrats laugh, and Republicans reach for their Scotch.
They are the reincarnation of the Know-nothings, who take pride in ignorance and conflate hate with morality.
The more candidates they nominate in primaries, the more elections are won by Democrats. Poor tea baggers, nobody loves them, and they can't understand why because they are too dumb for empathy.
The Bible says, explicitly and by example, that marriage is between a man and multiple women. The Bible also says explicitly that a widow must marry her brother in law. The Bible also says explicitly that a woman must marry her rapist. The Bible also says explicitly that a woman may not divorce her abuser.
It should not even occur to any decent modern person to impose this stone age crap on their fellow human beings.
Some people are raised in a way that causes them to entangle their entire identity, their entire sense of self-worth, with 2000 year old mythology. Well it is their right to do so. But in a free country like the USA, it is neither appropriate nor Constitutional for us to impose irrational "faith-based" beliefs onto our fellow citizens - not by having government pick a version and push it onto the public through official prayer, nor by basing laws on cherry-picked articles of "faith".
No doubt they'll top it off with a giant cross and a hangman's noose.
I agree that crimes should be punished based on the result of the crime. Stealing ten thousand dollars should be punished more harshly than stealing a dollar.
A so-called hate crime is a crime that is worse than a similar crime because it does more damage, causes more harm, hurts more people.
Furthermore, motive makes a difference with all kinds of crime. If you run over someone accidentally with your car, you will be punished less harshly than if you run over someone on purpose, even if your victim is equally dead in both cases. Premeditated murder is punished more than reckless homicide.
Crime in general "terrorizes" all potential victims. But so-called hate crimes aimed at a group disproportionally terrorize, harm, victimize that group. If you do that to people on purpose, you are causing an additional harm on purpose and deserve additional punishment.
No one should be punished for hating, only for making groups feel fear or terror, an act that we know is motivated by hate.
Lynching only terrorizes a corrupt community??? Because lynching is always a response to corruption and never motivated by hate?
Wow. Do gays deserve to be bashed? Did the Jews deserve the Holocost?
I can guess why you don't want longer sentences for hate crimes!