Suzanne may be a lapsed atheist, but she's certainly a member in good standing of the fucktard community.
Newsflash: atheists really are smarter than theists, at least generally. There really is a Dominionist movement (not a conspiracy, it's out in the open) to establish a Christian theocracy. Religion, especially Christianity, really is a crutch for dupes.
But the recto-cranial inversion gets worse: "'[T]heocracy' [to which atheists object] means ANY laws inspired by Christianity even if people of other religions (and none) can and do agree with them." Why would we object to laws we can agree with? And it's a blatantly fucktarded contradiction to say we object to laws we actually do agree with.
"As if there could be no rational, reason-based arguments to support these things [traditional marriage, and protect for the unborn]." Sure there are: it is an actual fact that many people hate gay people, and hating someone is a reason [not a reason I generally approve of, but a reason nonetheless] to oppress people. This is a perfectly legitimate reason-based argument in a democracy, but I wonder if Suzanne wants to explicitly make that argument. Other than that, however, the supposedly "rational, reason-based" arguments against gay marriage and abortion rights are ridiculously stupid.