If We Legalize Gay Marriage, We Must Enact Protection Laws for the Rights of Churches!

I myself am pro gay-marriage. The way I see it, homosexuals have a right to live a homosexual lifestyle if they choose, whether I agree with it or not.
Now I am not here to argue whether or not gay marriage should be legal.
If my opponent does, I will refrain from posting any further arguments and I would ask the voters to vote PRO.

What I am arguing is that if we legalize gay marriage, we must pass legislation protecting the rights of churches to refuse to perform such a marriage.

I myself am a religous person. When I read an article about a homosexual couple who sued a church that refused to perform their marriage I was disgusted!!!
The church was forced to perform the marraige on the grounds that to refuse based on sexual orientation was discrimination. Now I thought that this was a ridiculous ruling because there was a whole other aspect of this case that was ignored. There was a very clear and blatant violation of the church's freedom of religion! The church was forced to perform a marriage that was against their faith. That is a very clear violation of their religious rights.
Now this disturbed me. It was one church, but if we legalize gay marriage, it will be lots of churches. It could very well be my religious leaders that will be forced to violate their religious beliefs because of a court ruling.

There are many churches that will perform gay marriages and those that wont should not be governmentally forced to violate their beliefs.
Many would see this as being forced to sin against god!

Anyway, my point is this...
If we legalize gay marriage, a church's or a religious leaders rights to refuse to perform the marriage must be entact! We must pass legislation to protect it!

I contend that current laws, particularly the first amendment to the Constitution, are sufficient. The government cannot force private organizations to perform such services.

Would you mind citing this "article" you read?

How can you say that the current laws are enough????
It already happened! Clearly the current laws aren't enough!

I agree that they should be, but as long as their are "liberal" judges, they wont be.

As far as providing the article goes, I am going to have to steal the link from my mother who is currently sleeping, seeing as it is 5:48 in the morning
I will provide one as soon as I have one.

I have been able to find mention of it a few times if i googled with key words like
Homosexual
Sueing
Church
Methodist
New Jersey

Again, until you can prove that this happened and under what circumstances, you really have no argument. The first amendment clearly gives everyone the right to practice their religion as they see fit, as long as they break no laws. If some judge has made such an unfair decision, then this church should be appealing to the Supreme Court. Enforcing the Constitution is their job.

okay
well seeing as i am running out of time and I have been unable to locate the article on foxnews I will drop the article and I will attempt to close with this.

Because of my inability to locate the article I will for my opponent argue as if such and event has yet to occur.

First, I ask this.
How long before something like this does happen??? Judges aren't all perfect and it WILL happen.

Just the idea brings me to this point...
my opponent says the current laws are enough. the fact the we are, in fact debating on it says that there is doubt as to whether that is true. If there is doubt, then why not pass the extra legislation??? Even if there isnt doubt then why not pass the extra legislation just for extra security of the religious.
I skate. I can go out with a helmet and Ill be fine. I know this. But shouldnt I wear the extra pads just in case??? Of course i should. Its a safety precaution. The same rule applies to the protection of our churches. The constitution is vague on just where exactly faith and the law create friction. Why not pass the more specific legislation and dispel any confusion?
Better safe than sorry.

and heck!!! furthermore... it could very well be a catalyst to compromise. The gays get their right to marriage and the churches get their right to have nothing to do with it. No rights are violated and everyone gets at least part of what they want.
Compromise is the foundation of our current government. Its how our founding father solved their disputes and it has been behind every successful bit of legislation in our history. Passing this legislation is a key to compromise.

So to sum it up.
1. It doesnt hurt us, so what do we have to lose??? Its only extra protection. It would be foolish not to take it!
2. It could the way too cool down the heat on the topic of gay marriage. It would show that the government cares about both parties. Compromise baby... compromise.

Extra legislation most certainly could be harmful. Legislators with backwards agendas and the lobbyists buzzing in the ears of said legislators have a way of working unfair privileges into laws like these. Superfluous legislation is always a bad thing. At the very least, it wastes the money of taxpayers. Until it can be proven that such legislation is needed, it should not be enacted.