Religious Freedom

Disclaimer: this is probably a very loud and controversial opinion, and I state hoping not to offend people but to encourage reasonably dispassionate debate.

I am a strong advocate of religious freedom, even though most religion is a bit silly. I believe in the strength of the faith card, that science is as circular and self-dependent as any religion and that it is more parsimonious to assume that this world means something. Unfortunately, like freedom of speech, absolute faith in said freedom can lead to some tricky situations. For example, all the abortion ads that were on the side of the road in Adelaide last year. As an advocate of freedom of speech, one could quote voltaire's "I don't agree with what you say but I would fight to the death for your right to say it" (heavy paraphrase) or a quote I haven't been able to track down, something like "free speech doesn't mean anything unless it allows speech which is offensive". Despite my former absolute advocasy of freedom of speech, situations like this just feel wrong. Clearly there is a time and place for this sort of statement, and the good of freedom of speech must sometimes be sacrificed to allow the good of not having lots of parents having to explain to their children what is being posted on the side of the road, etc. Freedom of speech must be curbed.
A similar line of reasoning governs my stance on gay marriage. Marriage is, unfortunately, both religious and state, two things that should and normally are kept separate. Also unfortunately, at some point religions decided marriage could be had by anyone because at that points gays "didn't exist", ie were all closeted. There was some short-sightedness on religion's behalf. Now I think religions that say gay people shouldn't marry are wrong, but I would fight for their right to have faith. I also think people who believe in Scientology and many other religions are wrong. This doesn't make me feel the need to go into their church and tell them to change the way they want to praise. That brings up an interesting question in my head about brainwashing I'll have to stop myself talking about right now. Similarly, I don't think religion, not just individual churches but entire religions, should be forced to recognise marriages of people they don't agree with being together. Why only gay people? Why not polygamy, pedophilia, marriage with animals, bdsm? I'm not suggesting my ethics personally lump these people in together, they don't, but many religious perspectives would. I remember the movie Secretary, watching the making of it etc, the director was emphasising that he was trying to normalise sub/dom relationships "the way gay people had been normalised before". The financial uninion of a man and a woman, two men or two women, etc, should be able to be had by all, but the concept of gay people saying "I have a right to have the same religious ceremony as a man and a woman, and i want the law to be on my side when it does so" is getting religion and state confused. It's like me saying I'd like to be a Jew, but without all the bits I don't like, a muslim but only in name, etc. I believe in religious freedom and I believe in the separation of state and religion when it comes to marriage. Marriage should be like a bar mitzvah in terms of religiosity and sacredness. It should be sacrosanct. I think gay people wanting "marriage" with its religious significance are being religiously intolerant. Marriage without religion should not be called marriage. It should be an entirely secular commitment ceremony.
Anyway, the reason this came up is http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/14/2952787.htm?section=world
I can't believe in a civilised country they have banned a religion's right to express itself, just because our culture calls it unfeministic.