I am not sure about that Moonbeam. A church may believe whatever it wants. But if it is going to "serve" the people too, as it does, giving a service and "giving out" something, it needs to give a service that obeys the rights and rules of the country. What if those oneliners in the bible, that some religious folk will try to make us imagine are divine discourses against homosexuality, happened to be about people of a specific race instead? What then? Would we allow them to make ado against people of a specific race? They are allowed to believe it, of course, if their minds are so stubborn, but I don't think we may allow them to teach or preach it or deny people a special service on the basis thereof. That would be racism. The same is preaching against homosexuality or denying homosexuals a public service, a service that is important to the people. It is racism, but pointed at homosexuality instead. I don't think that should be tolerated as far as any "service" goes.
Maybe I didn't explain too well what I meant Ess.
I am not arguing that it is desirable that churches effectively discriminate against homosexuals. What I am saying is that it would unproductive, and therefore inappropriate, to legislate.
However much you say churches are providing a public service for the people, they are no more doing this than the bridge club I mentioned earlier. As Grinch has pointed out they are private organisations, not a publicly run bodies. If the government was to legislate to force bridge clubs to accept people who played poker, what do you think would be the result? Probably the bridge players would go all sulky and refuse to play with them, or fold the club and set up elsewhere or in a different format. What are you going to do then? Have the FBI or whoever stand over them with guns till they play poker?
So with churches. Any attempt to force those who didn't want to to perform gay marriages would almost certainly result in a go slow or downing tools by recalcitrant clergy. On a day which is meant to be one of the happiest of your life this is hardly what you want.
The point I am trying to make here is that many people, and for that matter many christians, want to see gay people married in church. The way to effect change is not by using the law to force a change which will fragment the "club", but to allow the members to convince themselves that they need to make changes in order to meet the requirements and expectations of today's society.
After all, let's be positive, the christian churches have a long tradition of waking up to the error of their ways and recognising that being "christian" doesn't (among many other historic "certainties") involve massacring infidels, burning "witches", stoning adulteresses, and excluding women from the priesthood - sooner or later it is to be hoped and expected that they'll do the usual and reinterpret scripture to remove the ungodly prejudice against gay people.