Under what should be the "duh" category...

The New Jersey state attorney general said that clergy would not be required to unite gay couples in civil unions, and according to this article, the decision quells fears of some religious groups.

One of the things I'd understood was that the government really can't compel a religion to act in a particular manner - the whole separation of church and state concept that serves as the foundation of our way of life. It's the concept that bars proselytizing in schools, prevents people from "bringing God back into the classroom," and from the government overtly endorsing one religion at the expense of others.

That we are a society that tries to keep one church from running roughshod over the others politically necessarily means that we are one where the government must remain as neutral as possible in matters respecting religion. This seems to me to mean that it's only common sense that the state of New Jersey would be unable to force clergy to perform civil unions or gay marriages if it runs contrary to what the church believes. It does not mean, however, that Justices of the Peace would be required to do so - in that the conferring of the rights of marriage and civil unions is a secular concept, and in keeping with the public policy concept of promoting the general welfare.

This in essense follows one vein of the concept of Separation of Church and State, and was probably necessary to avoid a 1st amendment violation.

I'd like to say that I'm surprised this came up, but the Religious Right has played this up to such an issue that it was necessary to ease concerns.