Legislation shutting out LGBT rights

I am a big proponent of "equal rights" and am saddened when I feel that people have not been treated with equality but I stand in support of the opposition to favor of LGBT rights.

I felt compelled to write this post after reading an article in the BW ( Legislators shoot down LGBT rights, 2/25/09 http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A321446 )to try to give another perspective on why I believe this did not pass.

I consider myself to be a "true conservative" with "true conservative" values. I believe in biblical principles, biblical, civil, moral and natural law. Understanding this it would be impossible for me to consider that someones sexual preference would need legislation claiming that they deserve "equal rights." when it, in fact, it violates all of the laws stated above.

I am aware of the progression of "special interest groups" and have become frustrated that these minority groups feel that they have the right to take something that many still consider to be immoral and try to "force" people to accept it as "moral" and "acceptable" even to the point where they will become all but riotus in pushing their agenda even after amendments, through our Constitutional amendmrent process, have passed( IE: Prop 8). It is difficult for me to fathom a judiciary that would even consider recinding the amendment after it was clear what the people have decided. This to me is unlawful and unconstitutional and also gives aid to "special interest groups".

As Rachael stated in her article " I think it serves to validate the bigotry and hate in this state..."
she goes on to say that "It's a fundamental American concept-equality, humanity..."

Although I agree "equal rights" is considered a fundamental concept, the term "equal rights" in America has never equated to GAy/Lesbian/transgender lifestyles. If we continue to use quotes and terms from our founding fathers and the foundations of America, may I state the words of John Adams and many others :

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." This is the beliefs of our founding fathers."

Moral is defined as:

with low moral standards, especially relating to sexual behavior encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861698469/light.html
or
immorality - Acts or thoughts opposed to, inconsistent with, or in violation of moral law.www.slp.duq.edu/rentschler/ETHIC/Vocabulary.htm

Or another definition:" is to violate or go outside what is right." The reason why I believe this legislation did not pass is that there are still a large population that believes this is outside the moral boundaries of " right and wrong."

It is difficult for me to accept that just because we oppose this behavior and believe it is immoral does not mean we are hateful. If this is idea holds true would it be ok to say that the GLBT are hateful because they do not agree with the majority, the conservatives or the traditional family values?

Simply put, in my opinion, we live in a nation of laws. biblical law, civil law, moral and natural law. The way I see it is that the progression of these groups is unlawful in every area of law possible.They hit the streets in anger and will continue to push their agenda whether people like it or not which also happens to be, as our founding fathers stated "a violation of individual liberty.

We have arrived at what I believe to be "The cultural divide." Societies throughout history when reaching this point have either fallen into complete moral collapse of society or "A great awakening" has occured, no one willing to succeed, we both view eachother as wrong with no compromise in sight. What happens now? If history fortells the future we have two choices.