1 Corinthians comes to mind... 1Co 5:1-11 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. Can you see the parallel here? This scripture doesn't counsel us to be sympathetic, understanding, or tolerant with people who openly flaunt their sins. it says to remove such people from the church, and the removal is not only for the good of those who remain but might prove to be good for the sinner in that it may lead to repentance. In the present instance, a same-sex "married" couple implies by their very act of living together in alleged "marriage" that intimate marital relations are an ongoing part of the relationship. This is unacceptable behavior within the church. It is not supposed to be tolerated and the couple should have been disallowed from receiving the sacrament and removed from fellowship well before this baptism issue arose. By performing this baptism, the open message to the other Christians is that sexual immorality is accepted and tolerated, and that there will be no consequences. It sends a message that gay couples can live like that and even raise a family, and the church should regard it as normative behavior in the eyes of both man and God. The Bible says, don't associate with people like this... don't even eat with them...judge their behavior and recognize the sin. We do so in hope that the unrepentant sinner himself also recognizes the sin for what it is, and repents. And we do so to protect the rest of the believers from coming to think that they can sin without repentance or consequence, too. We can see this scriptural principle in practice if we read the early fathers' writings. Hippolytus, for example described the arduous process by which an openly sinful person might be readmitted to the church; it required many months of public repentance on the part of the offender. You are focusing your attention on what is (in your perception at least) in the child's best interest. That is quite understandable. Unfortunately these children are in a bad spot; they are about to be raised in a household environment that will teach them a gross misconception about God's will. Baptizing them may, in these circumstances, do more harm than good to their spiritual development because they will perceive, as they grow old enough to understand, that the church accepted their guardians' lifestyle (in direct contradiction with scripture) as a holy and wholesome one. This will undermine the authority of scripture in their formative eyes and could do untold damage to their spiritual formation. Far better if they could instead grow up seeing that the word of God is of higher authority than the sympathies of mankind and that the church stands on the godly principles set forth in those pages. So you see, the child's best interest may not be properly served by this baptism, despite the immediate outward perception. But the interest of the child is not the only interest at stake. What of the souls of these misinformed men? What of the souls within that local church, and the souls of all (worldwide) who read of this travesty? The true faith must be preserved, correctly taught, and kept free of the horrific taint which is currently burrowing its way malignantly into the church's bowels, sickening it from within. This is why the exhortation of 1 Cor. 5 must be heeded; it cannot be 'optional.' It might be different if we were RCs, for then we would believe that regeneration necessarily occurs in an infant at baptism, even when the faith of the "parents" is lacking or defective. In that case, even a couple of satan worshipers or a pair of atheists could bring a child for baptism (say, for their own sick amusement). Is that what we teach in our church? Don't the guardians have to aver their own orthodox faith and promise to teach the child the same? There is no way these two gentlemen could honestly do those things; if they think they can, they are self-deceived (and are being enabled in their self-deception by this clergyman).