Ok, I can see the distinction between affirmation and accommodation. But, I don't see this addressing the second list of issues where current secular law currently overrides religious law. Unless that you are saying that a specific type of Judeo-Christian law should not be overridden by secular law. But, there is another thing to consider here. Our Constitution was designed to be amended and to reflect the evolving will of the people due to cultural change. Of course, you must agree it was good that we changed our Founding Father's view on slavery, and the limited right to vote. So, even if the Founding Fathers were Christian, and framed their society in the context of Judeo-Christian culture, isn't it the nature of our System that we should be able to move away from this as circumstances change? If the people want same-sex marriage, then our Constitutional democracy can allow for that change to be made. If the people want a more secular type of civil law, then that is what they can expect to have. I can agree with you that at some point, it becomes uncomfortable when religious practice needs to defer to secular law. Right or wrong, uncommon behavior is not as well-protected as common behavior. Look at the Mormons and polygamy. I'm not sure that it was right that they needed to give that up, and yet, we aren't fighting for their right to get it back. Perhaps what you are defending is reasonable from a certain Judeo-Christian point of view. However, it is a minority view, and because gays are now widely embraced in our culture, there are few that are interested in protecting the right not to affirm them. So in some sense, although I find the refusal to affirm a person's homosexuality via counselling to be reasonable from a certain perspective, I don't think the perspective has much place in our current culture in the US. I feel the same way about some practices of some fundamental Muslims, especially regarding the rights and equality of women. That is, I expect everyone to affirm the equality of women in civil interactions in the US, regardless of what their religious beliefs are. From some religious perspectives this is a secular affront. However, it is the current shared culture of our Country, and our laws reflect it.
Here, here! The important thing that you state, and I wholeheartedly agree with, is that the Constitution can be "amended" to reflect changes in culture. This is a very big distinction between the amendment process (which was purposefully made to be difficult so as to avoid the "tyranny of the majority" or the "tyranny of the executive" of the "tyranny of the oligarchy" (such as 9 robed persons or the administrative state where "laws" are passed by unelected and unaccountable individuals or "enlightened committees"). Today, we have "sloppy, purposefully obfuscated processes - purposefully I might add - to pass rules, "laws" and the "twisting of the Constitution to validate a law based on personal preference instead of using the Constitution to interpret the law itself. Instead of using the "ruler" to interpret the law, we use the "law" to force an interpretation of the "ruler" in order to make the law make sense - this is judicial tyranny at its worst (no matter what the political label). Again, see the Dred Scott decision as an obvious "twisting" of the Constitution to uphold "personal" preferences and biases. This "ammendment" process should be used instead of judges (or courts) overturning the "constitutional" process of ammendment which we see too much of today. Instead of King George, we get "King Judge XXXX". If they truly WANT to be constitutional, they would follow the process, but alas, many do not because they don't believe in the judicial restraint placed on the judiciary by the Constitution. They violate the very Constitutions they are sworn to uphold (whether they be State or Federal).