One of the hotly debated issues in the last election over Proposition 8 was the potential role of same sex marriage in education and freedom of religion in California.  The concern of many pro-Prop. 8 folks (myself included) is that legalized same sex marriage will require even stronger laws (created by legislature or the courts - more likely both) mandating the teaching of same sex marriage in public schools as a normative lifestyle even over the objections of parents.  Advocates of same sex marriage responded to this concern by scoffing at Yes on Prop. 8 folks by stating that our concerns were overblown.  

Yet during the campaign the Yes on Prop. 8 proponents pointed out through their TV ads that this situation is exactly what happened in Massachusetts shortly after its State Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage.  In fact one father who objected to this teaching by his child's school was arrested and placed in jail.  Also, during the lead up to the November 4th election, almost an entire class of elementary school children were taken to San Francisco City Hall for the Mayor to preside over a lesbian couple's marriage.  It was called, by one of the teachers, a "teachable moment."

Another concern of supporters of traditional marriage is that legalized same sex marriage will allow lawsuits against churches who refuse to perform homosexual marriages to go forward.  Again the scoffers of No on Prop. 8 said that this was not their goal, our concerns were overblown and that such a thing will not happen in California.  

Once again the actions of homosexual activists are proving to be louder than their words.  In New Jersey (which has civil unions for homosexuals) a lesbian couple have won their first round of legal battles in court against a church group that refused to allow them to use their facility for a ceremony.  The church group did so on the grounds that permitting such an act would be in violation of their deeply held religious beliefs and the tenants of their faith.  

However, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights has ruled that the church group's refusal to rent their property to the couple violated the couple's rights, specifically the public accommodation provisions of the state's anti-discrimination laws.  The couple's attorney stated that this fight is about his clients' being treated equally.  Never mind the deeply held religious convictions of the church and its members.  Never mind their freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech rights under the Constitution - not to mention their property rights, all trumped by the lesbian couple's right to their "ceremony" on the church's grounds.   

In California the same Supreme Court that brought us same sex marriage also ruled against a doctor who declined to perform fertility treatments to a same sex couple on several grounds including her religious beliefs.  The Court ruled that the doctor's sincerely held religious beliefs are trumped by the lesbian couple's sexual preference rights under the Unruh Act.  I doubt the same California Supreme Court who threw out the people's will in Prop. 22 would find it difficult to also throw out any religious exemptions under the Unruh Act that may still exist citing the legality of same sex marriage for justification for its actions.   

This situation is a clear example that when a state recognizes same sex marriage, it is interfering with religious freedoms too.