...the authors of this op-ed piece fail to put their idea forth in language that is understandable.

It seems to be saying "you can get married but we don't have to grant you any of the benefits that a normal married couple would have if we're a "religious" group." In which case it's BS.

That's exactly what they're saying. But my worry is that they're pushing the religious exemption because of a few quite liminal cases (e.g., the case of the park pavilion partially maintained by federal money that had to offer its facilities to a lesbian couple getting married; the owner's association had protested that their wedding was against the owners' "religious beliefs." Of course, the pavilion had been used for numerous non-religious events, but…).

I was wondering why they were pushing the conscience objection so hard...at first blush, it seemed to be irrelevant to whether or not the unions/marriages could happen.