As hard as it may be for members of the Hate Group that is the progressive gay left to accept, it is possible to accommodate both the desire for people of religious conviction not to be forced to act against their beliefs, and for gays to be able to get married in the eyes of the State.
As a pluralistic society, we ought to respect others’ religious beliefs, and do what we can to make space for them to practice their values so long as it does not interfere with basic political requirements. America has a long and proud tradition of making such accommodations—Catholic churches were exempt from prohibition so they could serve wine as a part of the Eucharist, Quakers and other pacifist groups have historically been exempt from being drafted into the military in combat positions, and in the 1990s we further strengthened laws protecting peyote use by Native American religions in their ceremonies.
The reason this debate has boiled over is because gays are insisting that conscientious objectors to gay marriage must be compelled by the State under threat of imprisonment or financial ruin to participate in gay weddings. It’s not enough to have a piece of paper from the State that somehow is necessary to legitimize their relationships, they also have to force the defeated to acknowledge their power. (The Gul Dukat Definition of True Victory.)
It would be advantageous for gays to show more tolerance.
Pushing for gay rights will be easier if religious objectors can be secure in the knowledge that the state will not be used to compel them to violate their religious beliefs. This does not mean gay persons should be discriminated against, but it does mean we should provide the space for people to not participate in religiously objectionable acts. As a tolerant and pluralistic society, it is incumbent upon us to provide this option, even if we strongly disagree with the moral stance of religious objectors.
If people would just accept and tolerate the fact that other people will make different choices and have different opinions, we could do away with this tyrannical notion that the state should referee every dispute, every difference of opinion.
But such a situation would be intolerable to the Gay Left, which wants not merely to take their victory, but to shove it in the faces of the defeated. Over, and over, and over again.