The argument for her stance against “gay” marriage was personal opinion, how she was raised (reared is the correct term) and after not winning the crown, was predicated on freedom, that is, freedom of speech. This is the same “freedom” people use to support abortion, contraceptives, and “gay” marriage. The argument against “gay” marriage is not personal opinion but natural law as well as Biblical principles. Natural law is something fundamentalist Christians shun because “faith alone” shuns reason as lacking faith, the faith that “saves”. Sanctifying Grace? Nope… faith.
Once you have faith without reason, your arguments lack reason. The same reason God gave us that makes us in His image. The same reason that says it is morally specious to peddle my “wares” on television and hold out morality as a personal opinion. Does it take 51 percent of “personal opinion” to make an act moral? This is why the Catholic Church doesn’t use democracy as a reason to change its teaching.
To the people who don’t hold the Bible as their rule for moral behavior, natural law is the only thing that is left. The natural law would indicate that man and woman is the way we are made and is best ordered to the rearing of children, as well as sex for “recreation” is disordered. And that wearing the least amount of clothing possible may attract the “morally specious” male less inclined to want to rear children or stay once my “wares” are less attractive.
It is disordered in that if everyone were gay, there would be no one left in a hundred years. Natural law is the argument for turning around those less inclined to the Bible as the basis for their morality.