but the truth is eventually they'll have to alter their religious beliefs, even as they will NEVER need worry that the government will force them to do so. most denonminations have spent the entirety of their exisance dening that they have gays in their congregations and looking the other way while closeted gays teach their sunday schools, head their music departments and praise teams.and ( gulp) pastor their youth. but as they've had to yield to to the wider inclusion of women and minorities in their ranks, they'll have to yeield to the inclusion of gays and their families and they will alter their beliefs to do so..
... they will..

My dog gives me the same adoring look (I love you too, Izzy!). My wife's gaze, a bit more challenging at times...

"but the truth is eventually they'll have to alter their religious beliefs"

You mean that eventually they'll choose to alter their religious beliefs in the same way that they choose to include minorities and women (sort of).

The problem with your wish, Dan, is that the religious leaders who think same-sex marriage is wrong really don't want to help it become legal.

Without question, one religious belief that must be altered, wherever it is held, is that everyone else must believe the same as them, or else [insert description of random horrror]. Not every religion believes like that, of course, but the ones that do is where fundamentalism, ultra-orthodoxy, and intolerance truly live.

In fact, one of the things that drew me to the Quakers (aka The Religious Society of Friends), was their simple, humble statement that they weren't the only way, that other religions and practices could accomplish the same thing and that all people, religious or otherwise, had "that of God" within them and should be treated in a spirit of equality.

I think, in their underlying teachings, most religions say something similar, if not as plainly, and it's only a minority of faiths that treat outsiders awfully, with disdain, condemnation, contempt, and/or threats. It's that minority that, you should pardon the expression, need to find religion.

@4 sure they'll 'choose' to. but before that choice they'll feel forced. it's what they fear.
a lot of us have already experienced the fallout from that conflict when we came out to our families and friends. however you parse it rationally, emotionally they feel backed into a corner where they're forced to accept something don't understand or agree with. later they accept us and then accept their acceptance and if we're lucky ( at least in the case of our families and friends ) they'll love us..
or not.

@5: You're wrong. I've met 'em, I've talked with 'em. They're out there.

I may be mistaken, but aren't there still countries where the Catholic Church still makes women's lives a living hell? And I have no such doubts about there being countries that the church runs absolutely where reporting a priest for fucking your kid is unthinkable for fear of retaliation.

At least this add brings up the fact that there is more than one way to be Christian. For way too long, nobody ever heard about the tolerant denominations and congregations. We had an inclusive UCC add on TV that some stations refused to air. Not because of sex, nudity, profanity or violence. It was because we dared to say that everyone was welcome and accepted, including LGBT people who were turned away from other churches. I will rejoice when the bigots pushing exclusion are the ones who have to be careful of who they are around before they spew their vitriol. That will be a beautiful day.

A pastor friend of mine intentionally separated the religious and legal parts of his recent marriage. They had the church wedding to sanctify the marriage, and then they had a JP perform the legal union. It was an acknowledgement that legal marriage and religious marriage are not the same thing, and though he belongs to a denomination that will perform same-sex ceremonies where legal (and bless same sex couples where it isn't), an acknowledgement that civil marriage can and should be open to all.

He's in rural Texas, by the way. The south isn't as homogenous as some (including some of us who live here) would like to believe.

@12, i'ts not that it doesn't work. it's just you don'
t have a facebook account. sorry about that.

@13: u wot m8

@12: That's actually the law round here. Only a marriage performed by a city clerk has legal standing of any kind, but you are free (and many pairs choose so) to have a Catholic wedding afterwards (customarily done on the same day, or shortly thereafter), or a Protestant one, or a Pagan ceremony or whatever. I was a bit surprised to learn the US handles that differently.

When you said, "The church also opposed votes for women," my first instinct was to believe that because it seems like the kind of thing the Catholic church would do, but then I did some googling and I found a source (Feminism and the Periodical Press, 1900-1918, Volume 2, by Lucy Delap -- http://bit.ly/QPhrjw) that says otherwise: "[t]he Church has taken no official attitude on the subject, but leaves the matter to the good judgment of her children as to what they think best."

Got a source, Dan, that backs up your claim?