wesmorgan1 has a well-written diary on talking about marriage with Southern Baptists, which combines a separation of church and state argument with exposition of some SB doctrine.
In the comments section, I saw this (excerpted) comment from coffeetalk:
When they hold to religious beliefs that have been around for centuries, call them "greedy bigots." That tells them that you think their religious practice of limiting their religious marriage ceremonies to heterosexual couples is unacceptable and wrong and should not be tolerated in our society. That's the message that kind of language conveys. That is YOU intruding on THEIR religious beliefs.
(
full text) This reads to me as exempting religious beliefs from criticism and I strongly disagree.
I support your constitutionally enshrined rights of freedom of religion (separation of church and state) and freedom of speech. I would not support a church being forced to celebrate any ritual inconsistent with its doctrine. I would support your right to state your opinions, even (especially) when those opinions conflict with mine.
However, I will equally support those same rights for myself. I will vigorously oppose any law, action or use of government property privileging any religion. And I will advocate for my right to express my opinion, even when it conflicts with someone else's.
Now, look at a definition of a bigotry from Wikipedia:
Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.
It is clear that believing a person is undeserving of the same celebrations as the rest of your congregation (treating with contempt) because they are homosexual (on the basis of sexual orientation) is bigotry.
Now, I understand that people can be very passionate, adamant and unquestioning about their religious ideas, but that does not exempt those ideas from criticism. And--this is important--criticizing an idea for any reason, including that it is bigoted, is not the same as prohibiting the expression of that idea. Note that the ACLU defends freedom of expression of Neo-Nazis. No matter how unpopular an idea is, it should not be illegal to express it. It is also not illegal to express disapproval of that idea, and it is to society's benefit to express disapproval of bigoted ideas.
Moreover, criticizing a religious idea is not the same as prohibiting religious practice. Criticizing a bigoted idea arising from your religious practice is no better or worse than criticizing a bigoted idea arising from your politics, or from the voices in your head. Religion deserves no special privilege.
I understand that it can be painful to be told that your idea is bigoted, and that you are a bigot while you are holding it. I also understand that wesmorgan1's approach may be more effective in persuading people that their religiously inspired bigotry should not be inflicted on society at large. However, you are not your ideas. You can change your ideas. If you think that having bigoted ideas is a bad thing, trade them in for not-bigoted ideas. The odds of this happening, however, are profoundly slimmer if no one points out this bigotry because it comes from your religion.
Support for marriage equality is support, regardless whether it arises from separation of church and state, or from not wanting to be a bigot. Both are good reasons.
Edited to correct spelling of Wikipedia.