In this article published in a Rutgers law journal, I address the problem with criticizing the effort behind Proposition 8 in California (the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment) as having the backing of religion.
Proposition 8, as you may recall, stripped gays of the right to marry, a civil right granted them by the California Supreme Court. (There has been much debate as to whether marriage is a civil right, and whether the California Supreme Court could have granted a civil right that heterosexuals never had, but I find these arguments specious. Gays had a civil right; Proposition 8 took it away.) A federal court then invalidated Proposition 8, citing the role religion played in getting it passed. Should legislation be invalid because religious folk backed it?