Religious freedom gives ME the constitutional right to violate YOUR constitutional rights; not, you the right to violate my rights!

as in NOT you!

How dare you force them to tolerate someone else's existence.

meaning politically conservative Christians have rights and no one else.

It needs to be carried a step further but it would work if the states got out of the marriage business by saying marriage is a religious activity. Therefore, the states will only give out civil union documents. These documents would provide the holders with rights, privileges and responsibilities of the former marriage licenses.

If people want them, they can take those licenses to a religious institution, witch doctor or where ever, for a blessing.

That is one of the big thing I have been saying for decades. The body of marriage law does not apply to civil unions. I have said this every time the question comes up - and at the first opportunity (post Windsor) the decisions went exactly the same way I have been predicting. Civil unions are not marriages.

If you don't understand that, just ask any same gender couple who had a civil union if they were allowed to file as a married couple after Windsor - or to receive the federal rights afforded married couples.

I have friends who are very bitter over that - since they were told (and believed) that you could magically create - within a state - a status other than marriage that would be equal. You can't. At a minimum it would take decades of legal work to make them equivalent as every single civil union law was tested within the state, and in interstate and international settings to determine what status to afford it. They have, in some instances, lost the benefit of years of marriage because they stopped pursuing marriage once they had created a civil union. That lost benefit took effect immediately when they were not permitted to retroactively amend their tax returns. Longer term, it will have an impact for some on spousal social security benefits.

Marriage is a civil matter. But it is a marriage, not something else with a different name. At law, when you use a different term, it is because you intend it to be different. When religious marriages are recognized by the state it is because there is a special section in the state law that permits them to act on behalf of the state to solemnize the marriage - as an agent of the state.

The laws would have to be changed to allow full rights or the religious people would be screaming along with the gays and atheists.

Marriage is a state institution. The current, mostly seamless, way that heterosexual marriage works is the result of decades of litigation, the cost of which was borne by individuals who encountered a situation not previously addressed, and were forced to litigate to establish that their marriage should be recognized for any of dozens of purposes by a new jurisdiction.

When you talk about replacing marriage, the first step is to get every jurisdiction (not only in this country, but every other country) to create a legal status called "civil union." If there isn't an civil union status in Canada, for example, my Vermont civil union gives me no rights when I cross the border into Canada (or into a neighboring state that does not have a civil union status).

The next step is to litigate (cost borne by individuals) thousands of cases to establish that the civil union in State A is close enough to the civil union in State B, or Country C that State B or Country C would be willing to step into the shoes of State A.

That's just the start - but the point is, there is no shortcut.

On the other hand, once the Supreme Court mandates the recognition same gender marriages as a constitutional matter, the only remaining litigation will be isolated litigation to enforce recognition - not the massive litigation to that would be required to create a new, universally recognized, legal status.

If you doubt how much is required, spend some time in a property, wills, or family law casebook - just to get a taste of how the seamless web of recognition of marriage was created. And marriage is a known entity - not some new thing being created to placate a handful of religious folks who don't understand that they are the servants of the legal system, not the other way around.

It would only be a religious artifact.

Proceed from there and you will see why it will work.

You don't understand the process by which marriage has become what it is today - something which is recognized wherever it was created, and wherever you currently live for any and all purposes (inheritance, divorce, social security, income taxes, etc.)

That cannot be accomplished by a legislative magic wand. It requires as many wands as there are states (including the equivalent in every single country in the world). Once all those legislative magic wands have been waved then you start the hard work of obtaining cross jurisdiction recognition - which includes evaluating whether a civil union in Ohio is equivalent enough to a civil union in California, to one in Mexico, to one in China. That's just basic recognition so that when I move from Ohio to California, California is willing to step into Ohio's shoes in my marriage. Beyond that, you need to litigate specialty recognition for divorce, property ownership, social security, income taxes, etc.

There are no shortcuts, because both the legislative and litigation process are creatures of the state (the Constitution mandates it). That means that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas - and can't just be applied in Ohio. Ohio has to decide for itself. As does Iowa. As does Utah. etc.

Think about the decades of the process of gaining recognition of same gender marriage - or the state by state process it took for same gender couples to create a legal relationship with their children. That is a fraction of the process that would be required to replace marriage with civil unions.

I teach law. I'm not just talking off the top of my head. You don't understand the history of how marriage became universal and transportable, or the reality of what it would take to create an alternate institution.

That allows an entity to claim same sex marriage does violate sincerely held religious beliefs.

Religious freedom is an illusion. It's impossible. Or you would have to grant permission to Inca priests to sacrifice female virgins to help the sun 'rise' every morning.

Religious freedom at the very least should have the boundary of the harm it does to others. The anti-vaxx religious nuts hurt their children. A religious nut wanting to stop that couple living a happy life of their own choice is hurting that couple. A religious nut preaching that Jews will be exterminated on Judgment Day is spreading hate speech conducive to violence.

The first Amendment is therefore flawed. The legislature should make laws restraining the harmful exercise of religions.