I wouldn't be quick to measure gospel-proclamation, even at weddings, in terms of 'effectiveness,' but rather in terms of faithfullness. This is what we're called to do as a church.

It's kinda like infant baptism (in my tradition, anyway). We don't baptize to magically 'save' babies, nor do we insist that people can't be part of the church until they know better. Rather, we baptize to acknowledge that God has already made promises to this child, promises that point to the cross, whether or not the child lives into the fullness of those promises. And some children don't. Does that mean the baptism was ineffective? God's Word is still at work to all involved.

So with weddings, they are gospel-proclaiming events, focused on marriage, that minister to all involved. They're opportunities to counsel not only the bride and groom, but also everyone present. It's a chance to remind a room full of people of what the Kingdom of God is supposed to look like in their families.

So, if your complaint is that our culture has a sick view of marriage, why would we give up a significant opportunity to bring a medicinal perspective? We can't make choices for young couples, but we can honor them and the gospel at the same time. One hopes that the gospel-perspective weaves into the DNA of their marriage at this crucial time.

So while I don't think easy metrics of effectiveness make for the best ministry, part of being faithful is doing our best to make a difference. That's why most pastors I know now require weeks of pre-marital counseling. A wedding is too short a time to build a relationship and help shape their relationship. It's an acknlowedgement that a wedding sermon doesn't 'divorce-proof' marriages, and we have more medicine to bring.

I think the real challenge is for pastors to find the balance between hard-core gospel proclamation and speaking in ways that let the couple feel like they could belong to the Body of Christ. We can't fall into the 'civic duty' trap, offering vague pleasantries about God and love, but neither should we confront them in such a way that they feel God and the church rejects them as people.

[By the way, researchers like the Barna Group have shown that divorce rates are about the same for those who are 'born-again' and those who are not. However, divorce rates drop significantly for couples with shared spiritual practices. Praying together and going to church together is literally a way to better divorce-proof your marriage. All the more reason to encourage good spiritual hygiene. But I digress...]

As to the legal vs. moral, I'm no philosopher of law. Yet it seem to me the legal is simply the codified moral, though mostly within the horizontal sphere. In a pluralistic society. We've simply tried to codify and enforce the morality of how we treat each other with the power of the state.

As to clergy acting as agents of the state in marriage, it is an odd thing, laregly due to the historical and uneasy seperation of church and state in post-Reformation Europe. Clergy are agents of the state, but I wouldn't necessarily say their authority comes from the state as much as it is recognized by the state.

In short, I wouldn't abandon such a significant opportunity to preach the gospel, leaving the state to become a mere relationship-registration service, just because it doesn't have immediate effects. The gospel is like a little yeast, which can transform a whole lump of dough...

Of course I am aware that some individuals who practice homosexuality, and some advocacy organizations, have indulged in rhetoric about requiring non-discrimination by churches. I believe I read a quote following the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision extending marriage to same-sex couples, from a man who said once the decision was confirmed, he was going to ask a Baptist church to host his wedding, then sue them for substantial damages if they refused. Neither those who threaten nor fear such actions understand constitutional law. Both federal and state courts have long adhered to a rule called church autonomy in matters of faith and doctrine. Because Congress has no power to pass any law establishing a religion, or forbidding the free exercise thereof, courts simply will not get involved in making any decision binding on churches in these areas. A good example can be found in <a>Bryce v. St. Aidan's Episcopal Church</a>. A dismissed youth pastor and her lesbian partner, a congregational minister, filed a sexual harassment claim against St. Aidan's, over materials circulated for discussion within the church, and comments expressed at church meetings. The federal Tenth Circuit appeals court flatly refused to get involved in a matter of internal church governance. It really is of no legal consideration that the two women involved were offended. They have the right to stay away from the church, not to respect within the church for their personal choices. The Salvation Army, and many other churches, let themselves in for challenges to their hiring practices when they accept federal funds for programs that must, by law, be available to the general population. They cannot, e.g., require attendance at their services as a condition for receiving aid from a federally funded program. Discrimination in hiring for a federally funded program can also become an issue. Programs funded entirely by private donations, or church functions kept separate from federally-funded programs, are none of the government's business. So, no need to waste valuable energy shuddering. There are also many good Supreme Court decisions affirming that parents have a constitutional liberty interest in directing the upbringing of their children, most adopted by rather liberal panels of justices. As to whether parents are permitted to bear children, there is a decision called Roe v. Wade which, among other things, would positively forbid any level of government from interfering in the decision of married couples to conceive and bear a child, and certainly would forbid any government policy making abortion in any trimester compulsory.