The NY Daily News reports on a religious freedom element that went largely overlooked in Vermont's recently passed same-sex marriage law. In conjunction with recognizing marriage between gay and lesbian couples, the bill specifically rules out any requirement that clergy perform such ceremonies. 

As Howard Friedman notes, the law (pdf here) also exlicitly allows religious organizations to determine whether to extend spousal benefits to any employees in a same-sex marriage. Additionally, religious organizations...

...shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an individual if the request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges in accordance with this subsection shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.

I have to admit, I've never taken too seriously (as the Daily News opinion writer apparently does) the concern that ministers will somehow be forced by the government to marry couples against their will, or religious beliefs. At the very least, it's hard to see how courts would allow that kind of intrusive requirement. Call me naive. Perhaps direct provisions like this one though will be a step in the right direction, both to ensure the protection of churches' autonomy in matters like this, as well as to allay any fears about the ramifications of extending civil marriage rights.