Here's your answer. In the worst-case scenario, in which the state, backed by the sanction of federal courts, says that churches that refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies cannot perform a marriage valid in that state, we tell people that our ceremony no longer has significance under the law. A couple who wants the church to recognize their marriage should, if they want to be married under the law, go to a justice of the peace, have the legalities taken care of, and then come to the church where a wedding service will be held. The state can prohibit neither the holding nor the refusal to hold a church service.

It can, if it chooses, establish licensing of people to perform marriages under the laws of the state. A generation ago, I think such a law would have been struck down as religious discrimination against churches that taught that homosexuality was sinful, and an unlawful interference with the religious beliefs of members of those churches that teach that marriage is a sacrament. Now, however, the courts appear to have made gay rights paramount over all other rights.

If a state undertook to prohibit outright even church services to recognize a marriage unless the church was willing to conduct such services to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, I don't think that kind of law would be upheld--not yet, anyhow. The day the courts would uphold that sort of law, there is no First Amendment any more.