My assertion assumes that ignorance does not automatically equal predjudice for it’s own sake, rather that misinformation, or ignorance, or simple lack of experience equate to a wrongheaded viewpoint as opposed to ‘OMG teh gayz is horrible’.
My argument never has been that SSM is a bad thing, rather, that not all people who believe that it is are jabbering, evil homophobes.
Not if she’s against gay marriage, she doesn’t. It’s preachers and religious doctrines that speak against gay marriage – not the Bible.
I agree with you here; as I said in another thread, arguments for gay marriage are either irrational or bigoted, but not necessarily both.
I do feel it is incumbent upon the ignorance to correct the problem themselves, though.
Agreed, though a little help from those with the capability of a little more abstract thought can’t hurt 
Certainly it’s been legal in various places and times; even demanded by the law. As for America specifically, I don’t know if it’s been officially legal, but it’s typically been effectively legal.
Then they are sane but evil. If you oppose SSM, you are bigoted vermin. Period.
Bigots seldom change. They’d be more likely to take the opportunity to mock the gays for losing, or if they thought they could get away with it assault or kill them.
Militant, loud and angry is what generally wins this sort of fight.
Do you think it was better for the nation to see Bull Connor turns hoses and dogs on unarmed, unresisting marchers, or would the cause have been served better if the marchers had kicked the shit out of him and his deputies?
That was a freakish period of history. Nowadays, the authorities would simply have ignored those protesters; it probably wouldn’t have even made the national news. Passive methods like that only work when the other side lets them work.
And “militant, loud and angry” isn’t the same as “violent” anyway.