Richard Ostling has a piece on the problems that religious groups face if gay marriage becomes legal in more places. The bias in the piece is that no consideration given to religious groups who do support gay marriage.
They've into problems because gay marriage is illegal in most places. There was the case of the two Unitarian ministers who were charged by the a NY district attorney with "solemnizing" gay marriages. They could have faced up to two years in prison for their actions.
Ostling's piece also conflates churches with religious agencies which receive federal and state funds, quasi public groups like the Catholic Charities in Boston would not be in a position to discriminate. And yet that doesn't mean that congregations would face the same thing.
No church has ever been forced to perform an interracial marriage or been forced to admit women pastors, etc. The change in the laws did affect public agencies, not churches. The piece, not having this distinction, ends up increasing fears among conservative churches.
I've noticed that Ostling and another religious reporters tend to be one sided when it comes to religion, usually skewed to the right. Another example is a piece which claims that social justice work by the Methodist means less members, repeating the claims of the IRD.
I wanted to note the defeat of the federal marriage amendment. I think the tide is turning on that issue. The Minnesota Methodists recently voted to support gay marriage in the church and the United Church of Christ applauds the defeat of the FMA.