Today, California upheld Prop. 8, taking away same-sex marriage rights in the state but leaving as valid the marriages of couples who wed under California's same-sex marriage law before election day.

With the ruling comes the resurfacing of serious misinformation opponents of same-sex marriage have been spreading in the Prop. 8 fight and in campaigns across the country.

For instance, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) celebrated the ruling as a victory for "civil rights."

One of NOM's leading arguments (see their "Gathering Storm" ad that got a lot of play in the media) has been that same-sex marriage is a threat to religious liberty. While there certainly have been clashes between particular religious groups and proponents of GLBT rights, NOM's claim that marriage poses a particular threat to religious groups is overblown, at best.

Take the examples from their very own "Gathering Storm" Background Facts site. While each of these cases does appear to present a conflict between religious groups and gay rights, a closer look reveals it's not so cut and dried.

While NOM claims to focus only on marriage, not other legal benefits and rights for same-sex couples (scroll down to talking point 6 under FAQs) one of their examples takes place in a state where same-sex marriage isn't even legal. As HRC points out, the New Jersey and California examples "are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage."

NOM's third example, the "Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach... that gay marriage is OK," doesn't seem to take a very high view of a parent's ability to shape his/her child's values.

After all, the government's willingness to re-marry divorced persons does not render a conservative Catholic parent "helpless" in teaching her child that divorce (without an annulment) and remarriage are wrong according to their values.

The Catholic example is actually pretty fitting when it comes down to arguments about same-sex marriage and religious liberty. As Andrew Sullivan has noted:

...Catholic doctrine is that marriage is for life. Divorce is not the end of that marriage in the eyes of God. And yet Catholics can tolerate fellow citizens who are not Catholic calling their non-marriages marriages - because Catholics have already accepted a civil-religious distinction. They can wear both hats in the public square.

Catholics and other people of faith would be able to continue to wear both of these hats should same-sex marriage continue to be legalized across the country. In fact, we already see the results of robust legal protection for religious groups, particularly for clergy, who are allowed to practice the teachings of their religion even when it conflicts with state employment laws. Churches will not be forced to ordain gay clergy (as Catholics are not forced by the government to ordain women) or marry gay couples--clergy have always been able to decide who they would marry (for example, many rabbis won't officiate interfaith marriage ceremonies).

As HRC says:

Granting marriage rights to same-sex couples would not require leaders of Christian, Jewish, Islamic or any other religious leaders to perform these marriages. It would not require religious institutions to permit these ceremonies to be held on their grounds. It would not even require that religious communities discuss the issue. People of faith would remain free to make their own judgments about what makes a marriage in the eyes of God -- just as they are today.