Indeed, and as an American I've watched some of the debate about Forbes with a sense of frustration, part of it born from subtle differences in our political systems.

U.S. legislators in both the federal and state systems are always theoretically free to vote their consciences. We do have party whips, but "whipping the vote" is not a thing here - not formally, though of course lawmakers feel party pressure.

I say that in preparation to note that I've been a little dismayed to see certain public figures defend Forbes' vote against same-sex marriage by saying she had the right to "vote her conscience."

Well, of course she had that right. That's rather a given, and it's also the problem.

As an elected representative of the Scottish people, she voted to impose her religious beliefs/practices on people who don't share them.

She has stated that as a member of government, she would support and execute duly passed laws, despite her religious beliefs, but that's hardly the point, is it?

The point is that she felt perfectly comfortable trying to force her conservative religious beliefs on people by voting against a proposed equality law.

And you are absolutely right to point to the U.S. as a cautionary tale. Here, the road to tyranny is paved with the Bibles people like Forbes use to justify mistreating and excluding queer people.

I feel rather shocked (and incredibly saddened) that certain Scottish thought leaders seem prepared to march down that road to tyranny.