[sassy steel magnolia]

it would still be an unholy ceremony conducted in a holy place...bet we’ll see churches STOP doing weddings in any kind of public venue, and only by covert arrangements will any conservative minister or priest consent to bless a union between a man and a woman, and it will have to be conducted in a place removed from the church property or the priest’s/minister’s office and residence. Kinda like in the early days of the church when Christians used the fish symbol to indicate their secret meeting places and met in the catacombs under Rome. Or, recall the secret marriage of William Wallace in “Braveheart” where he married his sweet young bride in the forest at night with only a priest. Yep, blessed marriages between man & wife will have to go underground.

[Teotwawki]

A lot of churches only perform wedding ceremonies for members of that congregation and require that the couple attend classes/counseling. They can simply set this standard and tighten up the requirements for membership. This would have the positive effect of eliminating SSM as well as secular heterosexual couples that just want the church ceremony but don’t really have much use for a church otherwise.

[Gaffer]

I understand, but I never said “blessed by the church” I said blessed by government.

I’ve read words like “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”

To me, such a ceremony falls within that statement. It does not condone nor bless the union required by Caesar.

By executing the “ceremony” the Caesar-ordered action is accomplished, but it doesn’t necessarily mean ‘blessed’...a court cannot mandate that. Were it to think it could, it would be an outright declaration of war on religion. Emotion and heartfelt religion cannot be mandated by tyrants.