Thanks for posting this. It's a thought-provoking article, and I appreciated your adding your thoughts to it.
I'll admit that when I saw the source was a right-wing web site, and that Phyllis Schlafly was the author, I almost skipped it.
The basic -- and obvious -- response to her points is this: Just because something has been done for 1,000 years, does it mean it must be done that way forever after? To take the most obvious example, slavery existed for thousands of years, and was legally codified, including here in the U.S. Would those who think the "definition" of marriage should not be changed because it has existed for 1,000 years also think that slavery should not have been outlawed because it, too, had existed for 1,000 years?
From a legal point of view, there is no conflict between Church and State regarding this issue. Yes, most religions are against redefining "marriage," but, as with other parallel issues, that should not, and does not, affect its political legality, nor should it. In the U.S., all marriages are civil unions. The religious ceremony that may, or may not, attend it, is precisely that, ceremonial. The couple is married by the state, and not the religious institution.
She's dead wrong when she asserts, "The use of same-sex marriage to attack Christian businesses, but not businesses run by members of other religions, demonstrates what is really driving the demand for a new constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It is simply the latest attempt to destroy Christian institutions and discredit Christian beliefs." The businesses are not being "attacked" at all. They're being challenged because they are discriminating, and thus, violating the law. The same applies to any business that discriminates against anyone for any reason.
(Nor, for that matter, are "they" demanding "a new constitutional right." Marriage is no where defined in the Constitution, nor should it be. Add to that, private businesses are not "Christian institutions.")
She's right that the roll of states accepting marriage equality is growing almost monthly. And she's also right, there does seem an air of inevitability to the process, to the point where, despite whatever the Supreme Court might rule, in a a short amount of time, marriage equality will be on the books in the overwhelming majority of U.S. states (but not, of course, Texas).
Finally, she seems flat-out ignorant on how the political and legislative process works in this country. Laws or not established or abrogated by "a vote of the people," nor have they ever. This isn't how our political process works. Laws are voted on by legislators elected by the people, and laws are examined by justices, and not the people. There has never been a national referendum in this country on anything, never once. The fact that our government is, as she cites, "of the people and by the people" does not mean laws are passed only with a national majority. Anyone who took a 6th grade civics class knows that.