How should society accomodate the competing interests of proponents of ';gay marriage'; and religious groups?

Will the tax exemption laws be rewritten to exclude orgainzations that discriminate on the basis of sexual preference? Or will some kind of ';balance'; be struck?





What should happen?How should society accomodate the competing interests of proponents of ';gay marriage'; and religious groups?
Since the vast majority of the states have shot down same sex marriages, I doubt anything will change.How should society accomodate the competing interests of proponents of ';gay marriage'; and religious groups?
The goverment should just leave it up to the churches to decide. A church shouldn't have to marry two people when it is against their beliefs. However, if a church doesn't care, then who does is harm? The government can also provide civil unions. Call all court marriages civil unions. That way nobody can argue about the meaning of the word ';marriage';.
Religous principals stating the ';wrong-ness'; of homosexuality PREDATE our nation.... therefore there is NO likelyhood (nor should there be) that charities who UPHOLD the belief that homosexuality is immoral and unhealthy should be punished in ANY way.





WHY on earth do you think they should???





I would have thought that:


... by NOT arresting them


.. by NOT discriminting against them in the work place


.. by NOT discriminating againt them in home-buying


....by offering and recognizing ';civil unions';





... we ALREADY HAD struck a ';balance'; between queer and normal.





Doesn't ';BALANCE'; (be definition) mean each side gives something up? WHAT are the queers offering to give up to find this ';balance';????
Gay people should be able to enter a union like marriage, but not called marriage, because that's a religious thing. That's the fairest compromise. Religious people have no right to decide how others live there lives and gays have no right to enter into a well-defined religious institution.