Quote:
Having the state say what is or isn't a marriage is problematic because its definition will invariably differ from some people's deeply held beliefs.


Here's the definition of marriage according to the Canadian bill:

Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

How does that differ from your beliefs? Do you think it's an unlawful union? That it's three or more? That there shouldn't be any exclusivity between the partners?

Quote:
In a country like the US, where the state is not supposed to interfere with religion, we value our beliefs and rightly consider it our right not to have the state define our doctrines.

I agree completely. No-one is trying to change your doctrine. No-one wants to change your doctrine (except, perhaps, any members of your church who might be affected by said doctrine, but, as members, they have the right to attempt to influence said doctrine).

Again, from the Canadian bill:

WHEREAS everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

WHEREAS nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs and the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs;
[...]
3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Suppose you were Canadian -- can you point out in this bill how the state has defined your doctrine? Even though it expressly, and purposefully, contains language stating that it's not doing so?

Quote:
The real pickel we're in is that the state is ALREADY invovled in this definition of marriage, which is pretty tragic IMHO. Because no matter what, when the final word comes down, someone's definition is going to be labeld as wrong


So, tell me... who's definition of marriage got labeled as wrong in the above?
Other than a polygamist's?

Quote:
and while we are all free to behave as we wish with regards to marriage,

You keep saying this, but it's still patently false. We are not all free to behave as we wish with regards to marriage. If we were, then gay people would be free to get married.

Quote:
those who have differening beliefs than those recognized by the state are going to feel that their fundamental right to define their own beliefs is being trampled.

I keep waiting to hear how your rights and beliefs are being trampled. So far, I have heard none. Not a single shred of evidence that the state is trying to force you, or any church, to hold gay weddings against your desires, or beliefs.

Quote:
And when I say this, I mean it equally as strong for those on either side of the issue.

Of course... otherwise, you would have given in, already.