After gay marriage successes, activists look to build on new faith outreach techniques
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/30/after-gay-marriage-successes-gay-activists-look-to-build-on-new-faith-outreach-techniques/comment-page-1/
Faith-based activists in Minnesota helped defeat a proposed gay marriage ban there this month.
November 30th, 2012
06:00 AM ET
After gay marriage successes, activists look to build on new faith outreach techniques
By Dan Merica, CNN
(CNN) – It may not sound very powerful, but gay rights activist Debra Peevey said that a two-inch green button played a major role in convincing voters to legalize gay marriage this month in her home state of Washington.
“Another Person of Faith Approves R. 74,” said the button, which refers to the ballot initiative that wound up legalizing gay marriage in Washington.
As faith director for the statewide pro-gay marriage campaign, Washington United for Marriage, Peevey and her team distributed 5,000 of the buttons. They were conversation starters, she said, ways of letting people know they could relate to one another on the intimate level of religion. And that being religious didn’t meant you had to oppose gay marriage.
“We had people clamoring for the buttons,” Peevey said. “People of faith all over the state wore them. It amplified that perspective that people of faith do, in fact, support marriage equality.”
more at link
= new reply since forum marked as read
The often overlooked point - no state or federal law ensuring marriage equality would apply to church doctrine. One way or the other. The state can't force any church to provide marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, nor can they stop any church from offering the ceremonies. Legislation is a civil matter. I think that's a winning tack - side step the red herring laid out by religious opponents to same sex marriages. Clearly and succinctly.
That said, it's my understanding that the state also can't block any church from advocating their doctrinal position, pro or con. I think that falls within the 1st Amendment -
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
SCOTUS has a long list of interpretations and re-interpretations on the application of the 1st Amendment. They've clearly taken the stand that a church can't endorse a political candidate (a standard often ignored). It seems endorsement or opposition to specific legislation is a more fluid situation, especially if it happens in a public, i.e. outside the church, setting where counter points can be publicly made.
My take - let faith based groups make their case in the public square of discourse. I don't think that's wrong.
I think conservative religious opposition to marriage equality is in itself wrong. I think the support from other religious groups is in itself right.
Kind of a convoluted reply. Your post made me take another look or two.
Agree, progress is good. And on this issue inevitable, imho. 
And it essentially re-frames the issue for the broadest and most politically sound support.
I disagree with this -
"But if it's wrong for conservatives to oppose & seek to ban gay marriage for religious reasons, then it's wrong to advocate for it based on religion too."
I think the whole spectrum has the 1st Amendment right to make their cases in public forums. Don't support denying any of them. So I see it just the other way around. Folks can make up their own minds and this past election has clearly seen that means support for equality.
