The writer over at Salon seems to be missing the point of being a church. Not that a church shouldn't examine its doctrines from time to time to make certain that it still holds them (after all, the Southern Baptists no longer hold that slavery is good), but a church that alters its doctrines for the reason of getting its seats filled isn't much of a church. Just as a politician who alters his views for the sake of getting votes isn't much of a politician.
Uh...I think politicians who change their views to gain voters
are as "politician" as they get. Otherwise I completely agree.
Anyway, those individuals who leave the church because it isn't gay-friendly aren't really Christian in the first place, if they allow their morality to dictate their religion rather than the other way around.
In addition, I'd say that the gay marriage question really doesn't matter at all (in terms of church attendance). Let's say Christians do "fix" their gay marriage position. People will continue to leave the church.
Those who would leave the church over the latter's anti-homosexuality would end up leaving anyway. Those who do oppose gay marriage would probably start leaving as well. Finally, capitulating would lead to a worse view (of the church) everywhere, without regard to the gay marriage question. In any serious religion, the congregation is influenced by the church. No true church would allow itself to be influenced by its members. You cannot say (or, rather, no church can say) "[sinful act] is no longer sinful because X, Y and Z don't think so".
Finally, I have to agree with useful idiot.
