Todd
 
I've been away for a while and don't have too much time right now.  Stay with me; I'm reaching back a ways for some of this.
 
Religion.  Steve: "Billy Bob hoped that he would still be able to bring his Bible to school and read it in free time. He hoped he could still write essays on spiritual matters and give Christian literature to and pray for his classmates while telling them about Christ.
Does your ‘freedom of religion’ tenant allow Billy Bob to do this without government opposition?"
 
Freedom of religion applies to me just as it does to you and Billy Bob.  That means not only the freedom to study it, but also the freedom not to have it shoved in one's face.  BB should be allowed to do the things you listed (handing out literature is problematic, but since he's a student, not a teacher, I'll go with it) but he has to respect my beliefs and leave me alone when I tell him to.
 
Gay marriage.  I've been pretty vocal about this elsewhere.
Lance: "If two homosexuals want to get married, they can: mail announcements, buy dresses (and/or rent tuxes), have a big ceremony and reception (there are churches and clergy who will perform the ceremony, if that's what the happy couple wants), wear the rings, go on a honeymoon, call each other husband and/or wife, even adopt children.   Inheritance, end-of-life arrangements, and so forth can be handled through powers of attorney.  Yes, those can be challenged, but that's true of heterosexual marriages, too, even with the state involved. 
The only thing a homosexual couple can't have right now, that I can in my marriage, is the government benefits - the tax breaks, the employer benefits (although those are increasingly being offered to gay couples).   Gay activists say it's not about the money - great.  Then what's the problem?"
 
'What's the problem' back atcha.  You're saying they already have all these things, and (my inference) that it's okay, while arguing that they shouldn't have the right to them.
I've gotta bottom-line this (I'm a little tired): the government should offer its benefits to all or to none.
 
Steve: "I do not advocate discrimination against homosexuals in all this marriage hoopla. I believe that a homosexual man may marry a woman just as a straight man may. Where's the discrimination?"
 
There is so much wrong with this argument...focus, man, focus.  Short answer, a homosexual man cannot marry the person he would choose to marry.  For the long answer, I'll send you here (do we have a policy on the ethics of siccing other bloggers on each other?).  You'll like him, Steve, his posts are really long.
 
I am grateful that the 'gay marriage would destroy the institution' and 'gay marriage would open the door to polygamy, bestiality, incest, etc, etc' arguments haven't come up here.  Those things make me want to throw things at the TV screen. 
 
Finally, Dad: "Mr. Pterry has been reading and reporting an explanation for how this old game works!  Thank you Mr. Pterry!! I'm sure that the string theory is just what we all needed!!"
 
What the heck are you talking about?  And while I'm at it, could you go a little easy with the colors?
I've noticed that the discussion here has mainly been you/me vs. Lance/Steve.  We should find something to disagree about too.  Not the war though, we've done that to death.