I’m the Moderator (like head deacon) of my local UCC. Our, mostly straight, congregation passed a policy UNANIMOUSLY that ended the performance of civil marriages by our pastors at our campus or anywhere else or by anyone else on our campus. Couples have to go to a JP or Notary to get the civil marriage and then they come for a religious blessing at the church. Gay couples AND straight couples can also be religiously married at our church without being civilly married.

We decided that this would continue to be our policy even after gay marriage becomes legal in our state because the issue of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE is something that’s very important to us.

You wondered about if the state would recognize marriages decided upon by religious organizations. That’s not quite what we are talking about here. The issue is that the state recognizes marriages between two people, but they put conditions on who those two people can be, and the policy is not equally administered to all “couples”. For example, as long as the couple are a man and a woman, and are of “legal age” they can marry. The discrimination comes in when they say that two men of legal age can not marry, nor can two women of legal age.

As far as polygamy goes, even though it is illegal, it is non-discriminatory in that the law is applied equally to everyone.

As far as atheists go, the laws now don’t state anything about religion in the civil ceremony (the one performed by the state). What the issue is, would be to make the state’s laws gender neutral, so that it would apply to more than just a man and a woman of legal age.

The flip side of the issue is one that I find quite fascinating, and that would also settle the issue altogether. That would be changing the laws so that states and the federal government were not allowed to recognize marriage at all. No benefits for it in any way shape or form. No marriage rights for anyone — just treat couples the same as individuals as far as taxes, inheritance, hospital visitation, custody, and on and on… If it were marriage for all, or marriage for no one as the two choices, which would we all choose?

It looks as if California may go that way with the supreme court ruling. There is a chance that they will halt the state’s recognition of marriage altogether — what kind of wrench would that throw into the system?

Hypothetically, if it was given that the state would recognize marriages decided upon by religious organizations, would that allow groups that religiously believe in polygamous marriages also have to be recognized?

I know the knee-jerk reaction to that statement, and I for one do not support marriages made between more than two people for non-religious reasons, but it is a consideration for this idea.

I think it would get gummed up in legislatures/courts for similar reasons. How does one argue that religiously preformed marriages for same-sex couples be allowed but not religiously preformed marriages for multiple partners?

Also, what about agnostics/atheists?
Having no religious affiliation to speak of, would they be able to obtain same-sex marriages under the state as well?

I have a lot more questions than answers and I am curious to hear what others think.

Because, atleast in CA, ministers sign the document after performing the ceremony.

That’s exactly the point. If the argument is that they are denied the “right to perform the sacrament”, then that is not true. Any minister can perform the sacrament for anyone they or their church approve. What is prevented and regulated is the ability as to when they (clergy) are authorized to act as an agent of the state regarding the civil recognition.

This is the very argument that is used by marriage equality to lay to rest the myths that same sex marriages would force clergy to perform same sex ceremonies. The state says absolutely nothing regarding the performance of the sacramental ceremony excepting as in Iowa when the state points out dictating what ceremonies clergy can perform lies outside the realm of state or federal law.

In that regard, no minister is afforded recognition to act on behalf of the state regarding the action of civil licensing for recognition of the marriage regardless of their theological belief.

… “States that deny ministers the religious right to perform the sacrament of marriage, regardless of the couple’s sexual orientation, do so in violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.”

I doubt if this will fly far for the simple reason that the argument is a falacy. Ministers are not denied the “right to perform the sacrament of marriage. They are perfectly free to perform the religious sacrament of marriage for anyone they choose. What is denied is to act as an agent of the state.