I Hope this never happens....

[A-Husker-4-Life]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/932621.asp?cp1=1

I just don't believe gays should be able to get married... What do you all think?????

[scooper]

Incoming!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sachmo71]

I think they should be allowed to be married. And thanks for finding my can of worms for me! Did you find my 10-foot pole, also?

[Chief Rum]

I don't actually have a big problem with legal gay marriages, unlike many of my Republiucan brethren. To me, it's like the sodomy thing--what they do is their business, and who am I to tell them otherwise, so long as it doesn't affect me (which it doesn't)?

I think most of the objections to this are rooted in religion,a nd since I'm not very religious, I just don't buy it. Even if I were religious, I don't think I could in good conscience support pushing my beliefs on others without their willing consent anyway.

One semi-related issue that I have more reservations about: gay couples adopting. I don't think we know enough about child development to know what affect being raised in a non-mainstream family lifestyle could have. I would need more information on that before I would support gay couple adoptions.

But the institution of marriage itself, I have no problem witht hat.

CR

[TLK]

well this will be interesting.....

[John Galt]

Why don't you start by reading this thread:

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...threadid=10770

And if you actually have something to say when you are done, why don't you post something other than pure baiting?

Did your weekly I-want-TCY2 threads get old?

[sachmo71]

Maybe it will stay civil, too...


EDIT: Spoke to soon

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
One semi-related issue that I have more reservations about: gay couples adopting. I don't think we know enough about child development to know what affect being raised in a non-mainstream family lifestyle could have. I would need more information on that before I would support gay couple adoptions.

CR

CR, I appreciate your perspective, but one might wonder how data would be produced if it is not allowed. My guess is that gay parents, like single parents, and interracial parents make do and do pretty well in raising kids. The data will hopefully support that someday, but we won't know until we try.

Besides, gay parents are sure to be better than orphanages and foster care.

[MylesKnight]

Ahhh, Sodomy.

Lighten up about all of this Gay Marriage stuff, they're people just like every other American... They just happen to prefer a different "Sexual Method" than most.

Does a Gay Marriage really effect anyone in any way? Will this law make it more difficult for anyone to go about their daily life? Didn't think so.

Just let people live their lives.. This is AMERICA Jack! Not (Insert Middle Eastern Country of Your Choice Here).

[Marmel]

I agree with the original poster. If homosexuals were allowed to marry and receive benefits from my insurance company, my rates might go up due to the higher risk they pose.

[sachmo71]

Yes...risk. I don't want my rates to go up.


Wait...what risk?

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by John Galt
CR, I appreciate your perspective, but one might wonder how data would be produced if it is not allowed. My guess is that gay parents, like single parents, and interracial parents make do and do pretty well in raising kids. The data will hopefully support that someday, but we won't know until we try.

Besides, gay parents are sure to be better than orphanages and foster care.

True, John, we seem to have a Catch-22 there. Since actual testing on human children is only done by evil corporations and/or governments, neither of whom are inclined to let us know what they are up to, we have to rely on social testing. And if we don't have gay couples adopting children, well, then we don;'t have a society for testing, do we?

I don't have big reservations about it, but it would be nice if we could get more information. There's no doubt that gay couples adopting would be better than the orphanages/foster care that you see for many adopted children nowadays.

I guess it depends on the parents. As with straight parents, I am sure gay parents will come in both good and bad forms. Since it is statistically likely (based on current percentages) that the child adopted will be inclined to be straight, it would behoove us to place him or her with parents who are open-minded enough to point out the different ways society goes (it's just "mommy" and daddy's way, and so forth). Of course, we don't do a heck of a good job of doing that with straight parents (who should also be pointing out the varieties of life), so I don't think we'll do any better with gay parents.

CR

[MIJB#19]

It's been normal in my home country since April 1st 2001.

[Ben E Lou]

Why is a faith-based ceremony considered a legal contract in our system???

Seriously, I've ALWAYS wondered this.

(Side note: Also, ever gone to ANY "Christian" wedding (no matter what denomination)??? Listen to the words said in the ceremony. I always leave wondering how in the world ANYONE who isn't serious about Jesus Christ can go through that ceremony and enter into that covenant with any integrity whatsoever.)

[mrsimperless]

I respect everyone regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation and have nothing of value to add to this post whatsoever.

Hey wait a minute, I've never added anything of value to ANY post.

Shit...

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Why is a faith-based ceremony considered a legal contract in our system???

Seriously, I've ALWAYS wondered this.

(Side note: Also, ever gone to ANY "Christian" wedding (no matter what denomination)??? Listen to the words said in the ceremony. I always leave wondering how in the world ANYONE who isn't serious about Jesus Christ can go through that ceremony and enter into that covenant with any integrity whatsoever.)

Some choose to follow these principals, others do not. Just as some who believe same sex marriage violates the sacredness of a marriage, so does those violating the vow of faithfulness in an adulterous affair. As long as we continue to put our faith and trust into man's institutions and laws, we should expect things like this.

[Marmel]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Why is a faith-based ceremony considered a legal contract in our system???

I don't think it is...not up here at least.

I can get married in the church....the state doesn't care....they do not acknowledge it.

Or

I can apply for a marriage license and have it approved by a justice, and not ever step foot in a church....this is OK by the state.


Also, I have no faith, yet got married in a church. Why? Because my family and my wife's family all wanted it and they all believe, so I did it to please them. I didn't care at all what the setting was or what the words spoken were. I did want to dedicate the rest of my life to my wife (and vise versa) and that is the real meaning of marriage to me. OK I am done now, and if any of you use that last line against me in the future, I will never acknowledge it.

[heybrad]

Where does the concept of "Agency" fit in with those who are against it. I'll at least buy Marmels argument (although I disagree with it), but by banning something, arent you removing that persons agency?

[Marmel]

Originally posted by Marmel
I agree with the original poster. If homosexuals were allowed to marry and receive benefits from my insurance company, my rates might go up due to the higher risk they pose.

Dola....obviously I was joking here, but my company did recently expand coverage to same sex marriages, and the guy I worked for in St. Louis balked at the new policy and said exactly what I said above. I questioned him on the risks and other things and he said something like, "God will judge them in the end." Needless to say, I no longer work in St. Louis for him (that being one of the many, many reason I needed to get out of there after he was hired).

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Why is a faith-based ceremony considered a legal contract in our system???

Seriously, I've ALWAYS wondered this.

(Side note: Also, ever gone to ANY "Christian" wedding (no matter what denomination)??? Listen to the words said in the ceremony. I always leave wondering how in the world ANYONE who isn't serious about Jesus Christ can go through that ceremony and enter into that covenant with any integrity whatsoever.)

Agreed...of course, that's why my wife and I (mixed religions) went civil.

[Maple Leafs]

Canada is in the process of legalizing gay marriage. I think they're headed in the right direction. Apparently they're going to allow gay marriage, while not forcing any religious organization to perform them if they choose not to. That seems like a good compromise.

I believe that marriage is a very sacred thing, based on the idea of a traditional family. But I was never able to get very fired up over gay marriage, when any two straight people can shack up, never get married, and still get all the benefits under the sun by claiming "common law" status. If you're OK with that, how can you not be OK with two gay people doing the exact same thing?

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Seriously, I've ALWAYS wondered this.

(Side note: Also, ever gone to ANY "Christian" wedding (no matter what denomination)??? Listen to the words said in the ceremony. I always leave wondering how in the world ANYONE who isn't serious about Jesus Christ can go through that ceremony and enter into that covenant with any integrity whatsoever.)

I've heard it speculated that you (the figurative "you," rather than "you" personally) really aren't a true non-believer until you can comfortably sit through a deeply religious ceremony without being bothered by it in any way. The speaker (and honestly, it wasn't me saying this) suggested that once you get to the point where you can go through all the religious hoopla, state the oaths, sing the songs, and so forth without any fear of blaspheme repercussions at all -- then you've truly become a godless heathen. It's a fair point, I suppose.

Maybe the semi-believers are the ones who would have the most trouble participating in a religious ceremony. A true non-believer would likely see all the ceremony as truly just the work and fabrication of misguided men (rather than anything more than that in any way) and be able to shrug it off more easily.

[A-Husker-4-Life]

Originally posted by John Galt
Why don't you start by reading this thread:

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...threadid=10770

And if you actually have something to say when you are done, why don't you post something other than pure baiting?

Did your weekly I-want-TCY2 threads get old?

You getting sick of my TCY2 request's, too bad.. Hey atleast you are reading my posts.... Thanks

[Kodos]

I think the guys on "My Two Dads" did okay.

[Marmel]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I've heard it speculated that you (the figurative "you," rather than "you" personally) really aren't a true non-believer until you can comfortably sit through a deeply religious ceremony without being bothered by it in any way. The speaker (and honestly, it wasn't me saying this) suggested that once you get to the point where you can go through all the religious hoopla, state the oaths, sing the songs, and so forth without any fear of blaspheme repercussions at all -- then you've truly become a godless heathen. It's a fair point, I suppose.

Maybe the semi-believers are the ones who would have the most trouble participating in a religious ceremony. A true non-believer would likely see all the ceremony as truly just the work and fabrication of misguided men (rather than anything more than that in any way) and be able to shrug it off more easily.

That makes way too much sense. Where did you hear this?

[ctmason]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
But I was never able to get very fired up over gay marriage, when any two straight people can shack up, never get married, and still get all the benefits under the sun by claiming "common law" status. If you're OK with that, how can you not be OK with two gay people doing the exact same thing?

I question the use of the word, "any."

To my knowledge only 11 states and the District of Columbia CURRENTLY recognize common law marriages. Georgia still does, technically, but only if it was declared before 1996. Not sure about many of the other states.

Common law marriage is not as prevelant throughout the nation as you might think. And if you're talking about Canada, well...then....go watch "Due South" or something.

[albionmoonlight]

I don't know if Husker meant this as a baiting post (I'll assume that he did not), but no matter what its intention was, it sure was a softball over the plate for anyone wanting to start a childish flame fest.

Instead, this thread has been semi-jacked into an interesting discussion about the role of religion in marriage and the attitudes of believers and non-belivers.

That's why I like this board. I think that people IRL would have had a hard time keeping this from becoming a flame fest--let alone on a message board.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
But I was never able to get very fired up over gay marriage, when any two straight people can shack up, never get married, and still get all the benefits under the sun by claiming "common law" status.

I have no clue what Canada's laws are, but in the vast majority of states, common law marriage no longer exists. I think less than 15 states recognize it now.

[Easy Mac]

I hope they never let whites marry blacks either

but seriously, my mother is gay (since I was around 5 maybe) and she has raised us the best she can. It was a little weird going out in public with her and her "friend", but I'm just as well adjusted, if not more so, than kids with straight parents who never get divorced. Theres bad apples on each side of adoption debate. Its surely better than all the kids who have to live with single mothers who cannot afford to feed them, because they have deadbeat dads.

[thesloppy]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I've heard it speculated that you (the figurative "you," rather than "you" personally) really aren't a true non-believer until you can comfortably sit through a deeply religious ceremony without being bothered by it in any way. The speaker (and honestly, it wasn't me saying this) suggested that once you get to the point where you can go through all the religious hoopla, state the oaths, sing the songs, and so forth without any fear of blaspheme repercussions at all -- then you've truly become a godless heathen. It's a fair point, I suppose.

Following this logic,until I can sit thru Xanadu all the way through, singing the songs, and dancung the night away, without any thought of 'This movie really SUCKS", then I actually like it?

[A-Husker-4-Life]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
I don't know if Husker meant this as a baiting post (I'll assume that he did not), but no matter what its intention was, it sure was a softball over the plate for anyone wanting to start a childish flame fest.

Hey, I didn't want to start anything... I was just posting my opinions and wanted to hear everybodies idea's about this subject... I just thought every body was getting sick of my TCY2 threads

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I've heard it speculated that you (the figurative "you," rather than "you" personally) really aren't a true non-believer until you can comfortably sit through a deeply religious ceremony without being bothered by it in any way. The speaker (and honestly, it wasn't me saying this) suggested that once you get to the point where you can go through all the religious hoopla, state the oaths, sing the songs, and so forth without any fear of blaspheme repercussions at all -- then you've truly become a godless heathen. It's a fair point, I suppose.

Maybe the semi-believers are the ones who would have the most trouble participating in a religious ceremony. A true non-believer would likely see all the ceremony as truly just the work and fabrication of misguided men (rather than anything more than that in any way) and be able to shrug it off more easily.

Actually that makes sense to me, in theory at least. However, having lived in all my life here in the Bible Belt, I've been to MANY weddings where one or both were "semi-believers" (folks who give a mental ascent to it all, but clearly don't make much of an effort to live it out day to day). Every time I wonder if the participants are listening to the words being said in the ceremony.


...and back to my original point, Marmel, my Ordination Credential Card states that Ben Lewis "is authorized to perform, as prescribed by law, the duties of the ministry in all the common Evangelical churches." I'll be performing my first wedding soon, and the ceremony will be 100% Christ based, and 100% legally binding. Rather odd.

I'd say that the spirituality of the wedding ceremony is the primary reason that those (like me) who have no problem with the Texas law being overturned, are very uncomfortable with performing a marriage ceremony for those who are openly, continually and willfully engaging in acts that are contrary to Scriptural teaching. I strongly believe that the lines of Church and State could VERY much get blurred here. If gay marriages are legalized, then the natural next step is that those who perform marriages would be required by law to perform such ceremonies. I wouldn't perform a wedding ceremony for a straight male and female who exhibit an unwillingness to submit to the authority of the Scriptures, and the Imperial Federal Government has NO RIGHT to force me to perform a wedding ceremony for two males who exhibit an unwillingness to submit to the authority of the Scriptures.

[JeeberD]

I have no problems with gay marriages. Some of the happiest couples I have ever known have been gay. Why not let them make their love official?

[Anrhydeddu]

ceremony will be 100% Christ based, and 100% legally binding. Rather odd.

That truly is odd. Isn't there something about His ways not being our ways? I think someone asked Christ about this in reference to paying taxes to Caesar (the Imperial Federal Government?). He replied simply as "give to Caesar what belongs to him".

It had been said since it was recorded thousands of years ago that those that chooses to live by the principles of God's Words will be persecuted for doing so. I can't think of any better principles to put my faith into whereas the alternative is to put your faith into principles that are ever changing (or none at all).

[MIJB#19]

Over here in The Netherlands we have seperation of law, politics and Church.
Ironically the Christian Democrates party has been in the reigns for almost 70 years (excluding WWII), except from 1996 to 2002, in which period the "gay marriage" became legal.

What happened in 2001 is that in the (National) laws, the words "man and woman" have been replaced with "human and human".
For the law, any 2 people can marry (that is, if they are allowed to looking at other conciderations like already being married, under-age, or such kind of legal problem.)

Some people however want to marry in the Church as well in regards of their religion (which is technically a hobby) and wheter or not it happens is solely based on the Christian community accepting homosexuality.

All in all, I don't care what two people do in private to please each other.

My only concern was that it seems that now 2 people can take advantage of social laws ment to support man-and-wife-with-kids situations.
However, the abuse happened in the past with man-and-wife-with-no-interest-to-get-kids situations. If you allow these, then there can't be anything wrong with not looking at the genders at all.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by JeeberD
I have no problems with gay marriages. Some of the happiest couples I have ever known have been gay. Why not let them make their love official?

Read the last two paragraphs of my post right above yours. I'm concerned that when the government starts messing with the marriage ceremony, they will begin "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

[Daimyo]

You don't have to be Christian to be married... its not like it was a Christian invention. I would think of the spirirual marriage and legal marriage as two different things that happen to occur at the same time for the majority of people in the US, but that can also easily exist seperately.

I got married in a church to please my family, but had to have the pastor sign a marriage license that had to be turned into the courthouse... I guess theoretically you could have the ceremony and not follow through with the legal part.

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I wouldn't perform a wedding ceremony for a straight male and female who exhibit an unwillingness to submit to the authority of the Scriptures, and the Imperial Federal Government has NO RIGHT to force me to perform a wedding ceremony for two males who exhibit an unwillingness to submit to the authority of the Scriptures.

What I find an interesting corollary to your mindset, Skydog, is the assumption that a person can somehow determine the willingness in a couple “to submit to the authority of the Scriptures.” Sure, there are indications of it that you, or me, or many others can use to make a good supposition. But really it is a heartfelt matter between those people and God. The pure spirituality of any rite can not be somehow infused into the ceremony, despite the best intentions of clergy or anyone else. Ceremonial trappings exist largely due to history and tradition.

This type of thing, in my opinion, is at the root of why organized religion as we know has lost its grip on the bulk of society. Any spirituality (or most of it) comes from within, rather than without. The magical power that the Church once held has been lost.

[MIJB#19]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Actually that makes sense to me, in theory at least. However, having lived in all my life here in the Bible Belt, I've been to MANY weddings where one or both were "semi-believers" (folks who give a mental ascent to it all, but clearly don't make much of an effort to live it out day to day). Every time I wonder if the participants are listening to the words being said in the ceremony.


...and back to my original point, Marmel, my Ordination Credential Card states that Ben Lewis "is authorized to perform, as prescribed by law, the duties of the ministry in all the common Evangelical churches." I'll be performing my first wedding soon, and the ceremony will be 100% Christ based, and 100% legally binding. Rather odd.

I'd say that the spirituality of the wedding ceremony is the primary reason that those (like me) who have no problem with the Texas law being overturned, are very uncomfortable with performing a marriage ceremony for those who are openly, continually and willfully engaging in acts that are contrary to Scriptural teaching. I strongly believe that the lines of Church and State could VERY much get blurred here. If gay marriages are legalized, then the natural next step is that those who perform marriages would be required by law to perform such ceremonies. I wouldn't perform a wedding ceremony for a straight male and female who exhibit an unwillingness to submit to the authority of the Scriptures, and the Imperial Federal Government has NO RIGHT to force me to perform a wedding ceremony for two males who exhibit an unwillingness to submit to the authority of the Scriptures.

SkyDog,
If I'm understanding all the words well, you are basically describing what happened in The Netherlands after gay marriage was legalized.
Religious groups said not to allow gay marriages and some of the people following them are representatives to marry couples for the law (not for the Church!).
However, the local authorities would (and did) fire representants of the country if they would be unwilling to marry a couple for the law, only based on religous reasons.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
What I find an interesting corollary to your mindset, Skydog, is the assumption that a person can somehow determine the willingness in a couple “to submit to the authority of the Scriptures.” Sure, there are indications of it that you, or me, or many others can use to make a good supposition. But really it is a heartfelt matter between those people and God. The pure spirituality of any rite can not be somehow infused into the ceremony, despite the best intentions of clergy or anyone else. Ceremonial trappings exist largely due to history and tradition.

This type of thing, in my opinion, is at the root of why organized religion as we know has lost its grip on the bulk of society. Any spirituality (or most of it) comes from within, rather than without. The magical power that the Church once held has been lost.

Chris, in my vow to my wife, I publically stated to God and to the witnesses to be "a loving and faithful husband...". The Pastor was simply a witness (as well as the facilitator). It wasn't made to the church or to a denomination or to a religion, but to God and those chosen to be there with us. Because it was publically vowed, I (and my wife) will be held accountable to that vow by God and those witnesses.

[albionmoonlight]

One of the most interesting tensions in the Constituion is that the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

On the one hand, the Government cannot sponsor a religion--on the other hand, it cannot prevent anyone from freely exercising their religion.

I am not a First Amendment scholar by any stretch. I think that preventing the ministers of a certain church from being able to marry people unless those ministers also agree to marry homosexual couples would violate the First Amendment. Such an action would prohibit the free exercise of certain religions by denying them a right that other religions have BECAUSE of a sincerely held religious belief of the members of the first religion.

I would be interested in hearing what others have to say.

I agree with SkyDog that no church where the beliefs are validly held should be forced to agree to certain stipulations that go against those beliefs in order to have a right (the right to marry people) that other churches have. I am pretty sure that the First Amendment agrees with us here, but, again, I would be interested in any learning on the subject.

(NOTE: The "validly held" stipulation is in there to keep people from claiming that they belong to things like "the Church of I don't have to pay any taxes.")

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by JeeberD
I have no problems with gay marriages. Some of the happiest couples I have ever known have been gay. Why not let them make their love official?

Because then you will have a lot of problems with people getting divorces when they don't want to "be" gay anymore...

[mrsimperless]

(NOTE: The "validly held" stipulation is in there to keep people from claiming that they belong to things like "the Church of I don't have to pay any taxes.") [/b]

Sign me up please!

[Daimyo]

I don't understand how legalizing gay marriage equals forcing churchs to marry gay couples. I'm sure that there would be lawsuits to that effect, but I doubt very much any church would be forced to marry a gay couple if they didn't want to.

IMO, everyone should have the right to a legal marriage status. Individual churches should still have the right to provide or not provide the service of a wedding ceremony to whatever clients they choose.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Daimyo
I don't understand how legalizing gay marriage equals forcing churchs to marry gay couples. I'm sure that there would be lawsuits to that effect, but I doubt very much any church would be forced to marry a gay couple if they didn't want to.

IMO, everyone should have the right to a legal marriage status. Individual churches should still have the right to provide or not provide the service of a wedding ceremony to whatever clients they choose.

Awww...we Catholics took care of that long time ago. There a tons of rules about who can get married in the Catholic Church, and if you fail even one of them, it's a no-go. Let them try to sue the Pope! He isn't gonna change the rules for anyone! Sheesh, get with the program people!




I think I've done enough sarcasm for today...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
What I find an interesting corollary to your mindset, Skydog, is the assumption that a person can somehow determine the willingness in a couple “to submit to the authority of the Scriptures.” Sure, there are indications of it that you, or me, or many others can use to make a good supposition. But really it is a heartfelt matter between those people and God.

I agree with you here to a point, but let me give an example to illustrate what I'm talking about:

If a couple came to me wanting me to perform the ceremony and it came out during pre-marital counseling that they were having pre-marital sex, I'd try to begin to work on ways to avoid the temptation to continue doing so. If they responded that they had no intention whatsoever of stopping that behavior, then I don't believe it would be judgemental to conclude that they are unwilling to submit to the authority of the Scriptures prohibiting that very act. They've said it themselves, not me.

Similarly, if two men came to me and expressed no desire whatsoever to avoid the temptation to continue in homosexual acts, then I don't believe it would be judgemental to conclude that they are unwilling to submit to the authority of the Scriptures prohibiting that very act. They've said it themselves, not me.

[Easy Mac]

I haven't read anything that says you have to marry gays in order to be allowed to be a church. I know churches that refuse to marry straight couples for various reasons. It doesn't say every church has to perform ceremonies, but that if a church chooses to, then the people will be married legally as well.

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Chris, in my vow to my wife, I publically stated to God and to the witnesses to be "a loving and faithful husband...". The Pastor was simply a witness (as well as the facilitator). It wasn't made to the church or to a denomination or to a religion, but to God and those chosen to be there with us. Because it was publically vowed, I (and my wife) will be held accountable to that vow by God and those witnesses.

Exactly my point. God will ultimately determine the right or wrong of a marriage - it's sanctity is not established or guaranteed in any way by the Church or its clergy. What I heard Ben saying was that he was not going to perform a marriage ceremony unless he was satisified that the couple was right with the Lord, according to his beliefs.

[Easy Mac]

The Bible prohibited a lot of things everyone has ignored throughout their lives, does that mean no one should be allowed to be married in the church.

[albionmoonlight]

Dola--

If a law was devised to force anyone who had to power to marry someone to be able to marry gay couples, it would (probably) be facially neutral (meaning that it would not burden religion by name--only in its effect)

What I do know is that the old test used to be that if

1.) A belief is a religious belief;

2.) It is validly held; and

3.) A state law burdens that belief,

then the state law had to be "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling governmental interest." In SkyDog's example, all three of these factors are met. Accordingly, the state would have to have a compelling reason to force all ministers to comply with this requirement. Even assuming for the sake of argument that facilitating acceptance of the gay community is a compelling state interest (a huge assumption), I doubt that a court would find that forcing all people to perform the ceremony would be cool with the "narrowly tailored" prong of the test.

However, the law was changed in a recent case from up in the Northwest where this guy was busted for smoking peyote in accord with his religious beliefs. The court in that case changed the test (in a decision that no one liked). That new law is something about which I just don't know enough to comment.