But what you are missing in my opinion, is that even if the constitution does not have a specific reference to separation of church and state, does that really make it OKAY to completely ignore that idea? If we just blindly followed everything the Constitution says, wouldn't we still have prohibition of alcohol, and wouldn't it be up to the states whether or not women and minorities not have the right to vote? Those were all changed in amendments. And I personally would support an amendment SPECIFYING a separation of church and state. What you talk about, people enforcing that churches do not talk about politics, I have never heard that before, but if it's true, the solution is not to say that because they can do that, you can ban gay marriage, the solution is to day that you should not be able to ban gay marriage and they can not enforce churches to not talk about politics. You're moving in the complete wrong direction, not in the right one. Without a separation of church and state, you get a government that influences its people or even forces its people to do things against their own religion.

I think you deeply do not understand the phrase "separation of church and state". It does not mean that one can not make references to politics or the state in church as you seem to imply, or even that one can not make references to the church in public funded buildings. What it means is that publicly funded things like schools, and any kind of government facility including courthouses, can not express support for, or utilize public prayers, or anything similar regarding religion, and yes that includes Atheism. A separation is not state-sponsored Atheism, as they are also not allowed to show support for a disbelief in God. A separation of church and state simply means that they can not coerce the people or force them into any kind of religion.

I think that your desire to ban gay marriage is what's really wrong and unconstitutional here. If a gay Christian wants to marry his partner, is it not a violation of the free exercise clause of the constitution to not allow him to do so, that is, if you really believe marriage is a religious institution? My main point as a Libertarian, is that marriage is simply voluntary human relations. As long as it's voluntary, you have no right to step in on people's personal lives and tell them how to live their own life.