Unfortunately, looking back on everything, Axl probably would've been better off ending GNR and going by a different name for the band.  Because with that brand name came loads of expectations, pressure, etc.  But he thought he was doing the right thing at the time and he's too proud to change any of that now.

People like to say how Axl kept the name so he could draw fans simply by the brand name.  Well, even if that's true, I think a lot more negatives went into keeping the name that outweigh the positives.  But again, Axl had this vision of what GNR should be, I believe from the very beginning.  Obviously I don't think it's gone quite as he would've imagined or hoped (at least the last 10 years or so), but I don't see him throwing in the towel and starting up The Axl Rose Project at this point.

He's had to rebuild the band 3 or 4 times over the last 6 years, and that has to be draining.  I'm sure he didn't plan on that or hope for it, but it happened.  They seem to have some solid guys in the fold right now, I just hope they can stick around for awhile and become a cohesive unit.

If she stated that she "didn't believe white people should marry blacks" she would still be entitled to her opinion, however this would certainly cast her in a different light.  The color of your skin has NOTHING to do with a natural act, therefore she would be basing her opinion on nothing more than race. 
The fact is she was talking about being against legalizing gay marriage, not crusading to persecute the gay community.

If a person can't defend their religious beliefs when ASKED, what is the point of freedom of religion and free speach?

Also if the state legalizes gay marriage under the very religion that condemns homosexuality then don't we have a HUGE problem in the seperation of church and state?

Absolutely, things are very rarely black and white.  The more I have grown the more I have seen life is most often "grey".  In the end sexuality is STILL a choice however.  There are many children who grow up under parents who smoke for instance.  Many of these children are "genetically predisposed" to smoke.  Still yet many choose not to.  It's a CHOICE.

Noone is born sexual, period.   

Really this isn't the argument I am trying to get in however.  I'm simply saying I do NOT support gay MARRIAGE.  Simple as that.  Outside of this I have no desire whatsoever to interfere with those who choose this lifestyle.   It's not my choice.  Just don't try to "validate" the choice by having the state force the church to bend their beliefs in order to do so.  Simple as that.

I don't support bashing nor discrimination. I simply think a person's choice is nothing more than that...a choice.  This does not give that group of people the right to make it "acceptable" to a religion that denounces the act, by having a law enforce it.  I mean no harm nor disrespect to any person of gay orientation...I am just very fearful toward the idea of giving the state this much power.  That is my reasoning.  It's not to hurt anyone in the gay community it's to protect the seperation that still exists between church and state.