I find myself in the uncomfortable position of being in virtually total agreement with the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union in its suit against a judge who ruled that marriages are invalid “if presided over by a minister who does not regularly serve a church or preach in a physical house of worship.”
As a minister who does “regularly serve a church” and “preach in a physical house of worship,” I disagree vehemently with the judge’s ruling. If the separation of church and state means anything, it means that the state (in this case a court) has no authority or power to decide which ministers are “kosher” and which ones are not. That authority is reserved solely for the denominational group that is ordaining or authorizing a person to officiate at religious marriage ceremonies. Surely this falls under the category of “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion in our glorious First Amendment.

The state has the right to decide who may get married to whom (bans on incest and polygamy, etc.) but not to decide who may perform religious marriage ceremonies. If the state is ever granted the right to decide which religious groups are “approved” and which are “disapproved,” then as a nation we will have descended from the heights of religious liberty to the depths of mere governmental toleration. As I remember, our forefathers fought a revolution to free us from such governmental intrusion on our consciences.