No, it isn't. For some it's strictly a legal matter, for others it's both a legal matter and a religious matter. That's why you can legally marry in 5 minutes by placing a signature, and separately marry "for church".
"The ceremony that many churches do that they call marriage has no legal standing"
That's not the point of the ritual.
Plus, even if this was a strictly religious belief, that doesn't protect him from the criticism of peers. That's the cost of picking people to make your enemy. Eich resigned after the reaction.
If my colleagues, "moslim" or otherwise, were in this position, I would only say 'tough luck'
You cannot participate in (or plainly accept..."tough luck") the criticism on Brendan if you're not also willing to apply the same criticism to pretty much every muslim worldwide.
So, do you measure by one standard, or two?
> You cannot participate in (or plainly accept..."tough luck")
I disagree.
I absolutely do not give a fuck about what someone PRIVATELY believes. The problem is not religious people believing in something, the problem is religious people FORCING their beliefs into law.
When muslim people do that, it's called Sharia law and I am against that, same as I am against laws based on christian beliefs.
Your two options to oppose gay marriage then are either believing the United States should base it's tax and property laws on specifically christian religions (plenty others have no problem with gay marriage), or that gay couples should not be "valid" in the eyes of the law.