Tom Suozzi, a New York legislature on the Op Ed pages of the New York Times on New York Legislation to legalize gay marriage:

Any change in the New York law can, and must, balance equality while making sure that religious institutions remain free to choose whether to marry same-sex couples. By following the example of Connecticut and Vermont, which included protections for religious institutions when they recently legalized same-sex marriage, we can ensure that churches are not forced to consecrate marriages they do not endorse. This will require a strong liberty clause allowing religious institutions to opt out of solemnizing same-sex marriage, which also applies to the provision of services and programs at religiously affiliated institutions.

This sounds real nice. Would you want to force kindly old father O'Flannigan to marry two flaming queens? What if they were members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and decided to get married in full nun regalia?

Except that nobody has ever forced any church to marry people who it has deemed unworthy. Second marriages by divorced people are recognized by society but no one forces the Catholic Church to marry divorced people. Besides, trust me on this one folks, nobody wants to be married by a church or minister who hates them.

But wait a bit. What is this "provision of services and programs at religiously affiliated institutions"? Are we saying that the Catholic Church can also elect to treat gay couples as unmarried in its hospitals? Or perhaps the Catholic Church will be able to refuse benefits to gay spouses of its employees? Are we permitting churches to discriminate against people seeking health care services based on their moral judgment? Are we enabling them to treat their employees differently based on this judgment?

And if the Catholic Church can do this for gay people what about all of the other people who do not meet its rigorous standards of morality?