"Nobody here, or anywhere I know is 'denying' them their civil rights."

             They're being denied civil rights if they can't name a partner on a health insurance policy, or own community property, or any number of other benefits that are afforded married couples.

             If they could have those things, would that satisfy them, or would they continue to push to force churches to marry them in the same manner that minorities bring suits against motels for not renting rooms, or sue resaurants for not serving them.
             At that point, it seems to me, you would have two aspects of the constitution in conflict. The government involving itself in religion, as opposed to a public business refusing service for irrational reasons.