Gay Danish Couples Win Right to Marry In Any Church They Choose

[bonnie]

Homosexual couples in Denmark have won the right to get married in any church they choose, even though nearly one third of the country's priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies.

Denmark has been a pioneer in gay rights since 1989, when it became the first country in the world to offer civil unions for gay couples Photo: ALAMY

By Richard Orange in Denmark5:06PM BST 07 Jun 2012

The country's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.

Denmark's church minister, Manu Sareen, called the vote "historic".

"I think it's very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married. Today, it's only heterosexual couples."

Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church.

The far-Right Danish People's Party mounted a strong campaign against the new law, which nonetheless passed with the support of 85 of the country's 111 MPs.

Related Articles

'Will gay marriage split church and state?' 17 Jun 2012

Bishop of Shrewsbury: Gay marriage is attack on family 04 Jun 2012

Opposition to gay marriage is "not acceptable", minister says 31 May 2012

"Marriage is as old as man himself, and you can't change something as fundamental," the party's church spokesperson Christian Langballe said during the debate. "Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman."

Karsten Nissen, the Bishop of Viborg, who is refusing to carry out the ceremonies, has warned that the new law risks "splitting the church".

"The debate has been really tough," said Mr Sareen, an agnostic who has pushed hard for the legislation since taking his post last autumn.

"The minority among Danish people, politicians and priests who are against, they've really shouted out loud throughout the process."

The first gay marriages will take place as soon as June 15. This contrasts with neighbouring Norway, where bishops are still debating the correct 'ritual' for the ceremonies, four years after a 2008 parliamentary vote in favour of gay marriage.

Stig Elling, a travel industry millionaire and former Right-wing politician, said he planned to marry his partner of 28 years next week.

"We have felt a little like we were living in the Middle Ages," he told Denmark's TV2 station. "I think it is positive that there is now a majority for it, and that there are so many priests and bishops who are in favour of it, and that the Danish population supports up about it. We have moved forward. It's 2012."

Denmark has been a pioneer in gay rights since 1989, when it became the first country in the world to offer civil unions for gay couples.

[Gregory Matthews]

Bonnie said:

Quote:

Homosexual couples in Denmark have won the right to get married in any church they choose, even though nearly one third of the country's priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies.

* * *

The country's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.

Bonnie did not tell the entire story in the above quotation. Denmark has a State Church (The Danish National Church aka Evangelical Lutheran church in Denmark). As such the Parliament has the legal authority to legislate what the State Church does. The Parliament does not have the authority to legislate what any other denomination does.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

The Church of Denmark or Danish National Church (Danish: Den Danske Folkekirke or simply Folkekirken, literally: "the People's Church"), formally known in English as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Denmark, is the state church and largest denomination in Denmark and Greenland. Since the Reformation in Denmark–Norway and Holstein, the church has been Evangelical Lutheran and Denmark's state church with the Danish monarch as its supreme authority. The 1848 Constitution of Denmark designated the church "the Danish people's church".[2] The church is financially supported by the state, but membership is voluntary.[3][4] The reigning monarch is the supreme authority, but not the head, of the Church,[5] with the Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs, currently Manu Sareen, as the highest administrative authority of the Church. The theological authority is vested into a college of bishops, 10 bishops in mainland Denmark, each overseeing a cathedral, and two bishops from the Danish Realm, one from the Faroe Islands, and one from Greenland. There is no archbishop; the Bishop of Copenhagen acts as a primus inter pares. The Folketinget (Danish parliament), is the supreme legislative authority for the church. As of 1 January 2014, 78.4%[6] of the population of Denmark are members of the National Church.

There is actually no religious liberty issue as it pertains to any other denomination. It could be argued that it is not a religious liberty issue in any sense.

[bonnie]

Bonnie did not tell the entire story in the above quotation. Denmark has a State Church (The Danish National Church aka Evangelical Lutheran church in Denmark). As such the Parliament has the legal authority to legislate what the State Church does. The Parliament does not have the authority to legislate what any other denomination does.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

The Church of Denmark or Danish National Church (Danish: Den Danske Folkekirke or simply Folkekirken, literally: "the People's Church"), formally known in English as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Denmark, is the state church and largest denomination in Denmark and Greenland. Since the Reformation in Denmark–Norway and Holstein, the church has been Evangelical Lutheran and Denmark's state church with the Danish monarch as its supreme authority. The 1848 Constitution of Denmark designated the church "the Danish people's church".[2] The church is financially supported by the state, but membership is voluntary.[3][4] The reigning monarch is the supreme authority, but not the head, of the Church,[5] with the Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs, currently Manu Sareen, as the highest administrative authority of the Church. The theological authority is vested into a college of bishops, 10 bishops in mainland Denmark, each overseeing a cathedral, and two bishops from the Danish Realm, one from the Faroe Islands, and one from Greenland. There is no archbishop; the Bishop of Copenhagen acts as a primus inter pares. The Folketinget (Danish parliament), is the supreme legislative authority for the church. As of 1 January 2014, 78.4%[6] of the population of Denmark are members of the National Church.

There is actually no religious liberty issue as it pertains to any other denomination. It could be argued that it is not a religious liberty issue in any sense.

Actually Bonnie posted exactly what was said

The country's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.

Maybe there are different meanings to the word All

[bonnie]

I understand that you don't agree that this will have an impact on all churches as time goes on and seem to believe that gays have a right to a traditional marriage.

There are still some that do not agree with your expertise in these matters.

[bonnie]

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM’S DRIP-BY-DRIP DEATH

Churches will be pressured into blessing gay marriages.

By George Neumayr – 4.3.13SmallerLargerPrint Article

Send to Kindle

diggemailfacebookredditstumbleupontwitter

The end point of liberalism is a coercive secular state in which the religious have no meaningful rights. American church leaders are kidding themselves if they think the gay-marriage juggernaut is going to stop at civil marriage. It won’t. It will quickly travel past court houses to churches, demanding that all religions bless gay marriages.

Denmark casts a shadow of this future, where the gay-marriage juggernaut has smashed through church doors. Last year the country’s parliament passed a law requiring all Lutheran churches to conduct gay marriage ceremonies. “I think it’s very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married,” said Manu Sareen, Denmark’s minister for gender equality. Reluctant bishops have to supply ministers to satisfy the right whether they like it or not.

Iceland and Sweden have similar arrangements. Since many of the bishops are in the tank for gay marriage anyways and since these churches are “state” churches, this pressure generates little news. But it is instructive nonetheless. Where gay marriage exists, religious freedom gradually disappears, to the point where ministers have to choose between serving as secularism’s stooges or facing societal oblivion.

In America, this pressure will take the form of “discriminatory” churches losing government grants, permits, and participation in programs. It will be the death of religious freedom by a thousand little cuts here and there: canceled speeches of religious figures at state universities, lost HHS grants, the refusal of city governments to recognize churches that don’t permit gay marriages, “hate crime” legislation that extends to opposition to gay marriage, and so on. All of this will have the effect of pressuring churches into blessing gay marriages. A law forcing priests and ministers to preside at gay marriages won’t need to be passed; the invisible law of indirect governmental pressure will do the trick.

During last year’s campaign, Obama said that religions will remain free to determine their own “sacraments.” Shouldn’t that go without saying? The very fact that Obama made such a declaration should scare people. Whenever a pol says “I won’t do [fill in the blank],” it usually means that very activity is on his mind. While he can’t determine the sacraments for religions, Obama will try and marginalize those religions that don’t determine the sacraments in a manner he considers “nondiscriminatory.”

Obama’s “respect” for these religions is on par with his respect for the policies of the Boy Scouts. “I think that my attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does in every institution and walk of life,” said Obama when calling on the Boy Scouts to accept gay scoutmasters. Notice Obama’s phrase: every institution and walk of life. Surely in time that will include churches.

But for now, Obama thinks the religious should feel grateful to him that he is not busting down church doors and forcibly injecting them with contraceptives or requiring them to preside at gay weddings. That in his mind is the sum total of religious freedom. And yet even that little space can be crowded in on through laws that allow government to reward secularized religions and shun traditional ones.

The goal of the gay-marriage juggernaut is to make Christians pariahs, as irrelevant to public life as racists. It doesn’t have to pass a Denmark-style law to force churches to conduct gay marriages; it can achieve the same end through punitive political correctness.

On ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos thought it appropriate to ask Cardinal Timothy Dolan, albeit in a roundabout and implicit fashion, if Catholicism could accept gay marriage for people who feel “unwelcome” in the Church: “What do you say to a gay couple that loves God and the Church, but also love each other and want to raise a family in faith?” It would have been nice to see Dolan challenge the insidious premise of the question by saying something like: So, George, you are saying that unless the Church loves the sin it can’t love the sinner?

Instead, Dolan seemed to concede the media narrative about the Church as hateful — “We have to do better to see that our defense of marriage is not reduced to an attack on gay people. I admit, we haven’t been too good at that” — while gingerly trying to uphold the Church’s teaching on marriage. His attempt at appeasement didn’t work. Gay activists pounced on him anyways, generating headlines such as “Cardinal Dolan Demeans Gay Relationships As He Says Church Should Be More Welcoming to Gays.”

The gay-marriage juggernaut only speeds up at the sight of such gestures, seeing civil marriage as just one stop on a longer road to a secularist state in which religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular fall silent and compliant out of fear if not law.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

The Catholic Church has issued a statement that the law only affects those priests and sanctuaries of the Lutheran Church in Denmark...

source

[bonnie]

The Catholic Church has issued a statement that the law only affects those priests and sanctuaries of the Lutheran Church in Denmark...

source

I understand that. How long do you think that will hold and affect only the Lutheran Church.

While I don't consider facebook gospel it does give a pretty good glimpse into the thinking of many SDA's. Those that oppose gay marriage are the real problem. Love is love and there is little enough in this world so who are we to deny them

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

How long do you think that will hold and affect only the Lutheran Church.

I don't know. I was only addressing the current law in Denmark...

[Gregory Matthews]

Pam:

Exactly right.

The law only applies to the State Church of Denmark.

[Gregory Matthews]

Bonnie said in post # 700180:

Quote:

The country's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.

Maybe there are different meanings to the word All.

Quote:

Denmark casts a shadow of this future, where the gay-marriage juggernaut has smashed through church doors. Last year the country’s parliament passed a law requiring all Lutheran churches to conduct gay marriage ceremonies.

[bonnie]

Bonnie said in post # 700180:

Actually Bonnie did not say as I did not write the article

The country's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.

[Gregory Matthews]

My post # 700202 does not read as I want it to read.

My 2nd citation if from post by Bonnie in which she quoted from a statement by George Neumayer, who said:

Quote:

Denmark casts a shadow of this future, where the gay-marriage juggernaut has smashed through church doors. Last year the country’s parliament passed a law requiring all Lutheran churches to conduct gay marriage ceremonies.

Mr. Neumayer got it right, with one minor correction: The Danish law applies only to the Lutheran State Church. It does not apply to Lutheran churches that are not State Churches.

[Gregory Matthews]

Again, I post # 700180, Bonnie said:

Quote:

Maybe there are different meanings to the word All.

Actually, if one were to consult a standard dictionary, one would discover that there are different meanings of the word "all" and that those different meanings are determined by the context.

For example, if commenting on a text of Bonnies, I said: Bonnie is all wrong.

The context would be the post that I would be commenting upon. It would not be everything that Bonnie has ever said.

On the assumption that my point will be understood by all (The context is those reading this post, not people who do not read it.) I will simply say: Check any standard dictionary to see what "all" means.

[bonnie]

Pam:

Exactly right.

The law only applies to the State Church of Denmark.

At the moment.You may believe this will not come back to bite us,but not everyone does.

The belief seems to be that gay marriage is a fundamental right

among SDA's as well as many others.

The last year or two on this forum those that disagree are viewed as self righteous bigots.There is little here to distinguish between the belief of non-christians and the gay and lesbian community itself and SDA's.

Several times it has been,"Well it isn't as bad as,(fill in the blanks) as if that has any bearing on the issue.

If I were gay or lesbian looking for a denomination that would support my lifestyle,I would be quite comfortable in the SDA denomination.I might be a little upset when I demanded marriage in the church and realized "Oh no,not us,thank you very much.

No one is suggesting that we demonstrate in the streets or bomb the courthouse. But the verbal support for this law is a little disturbing.

I am thankful that I never had to deal with this with my sons,but had that been the case I would never have wanted them to be influenced by what I see here and elsewhere.

We have never had a gay or lesbian couple in our church that I know of,but have had many that certainly were not living a SDA lifestyle.They were welcome,treated as any other member,whether it was the couple that drank heavily,those living together without being married,or the man committing adultery. They were never bombarded with scripture,or shunned in anyway. Yet there never was a implication that those lifestyles had the verbal support of the church.

[Gregory Matthews]

To all [NOTE: I will let you figure out who "all" includes.]:

Bonnie and I go back along ways. I consider her to be my friend. I assume that she thinks the same of me. I expect her to say what she thinks frankly and I believe that she expects the same from me.

So, from my standpoint, if you see is arguing back and forth, do not read anything more into it than exactly what is said.

[BobRyan]

Homosexual couples in Denmark have won the right to get married in any church they choose, even though nearly one third of the country's priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies.

Denmark has been a pioneer in gay rights since 1989, when it became the first country in the world to offer civil unions for gay couples Photo: ALAMY

By Richard Orange in Denmark5:06PM BST 07 Jun 2012

The country's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.

Denmark's church minister, Manu Sareen, called the vote "historic".

"I think it's very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married. Today, it's only heterosexual couples."

Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church.

T

So then "the local Bishop" will have to find "some clergy" to perform the wedding when said couple comes to an SDA church in Denmark and the local SDA Pastor refuses to engage in the sin of officiating over such a thing?

I guess that is the point that we have non-SDA clery performing services at one of our churches.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

The Catholic Church has issued a statement that the law only affects those priests and sanctuaries of the Lutheran Church in Denmark...

source

How nice for SDAs and all non-Lutherans.

But there is a bigger issue here - and that is that every attempt by the states to change constitutions and write laws protecting Christians against this issue has been struck down by their own court system.

It is so far - unstoppable in the U.S.

in Christ,

Bob

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

The Catholic Church has issued a statement that the law only affects those priests and sanctuaries of the Lutheran Church in Denmark...

source

How nice for SDAs and all non-Lutherans.

d'ya a bad week, Bob?

[Gregory Matthews]

Bob said:

Quote:

So then "the local Bishop" will have to find "some clergy" to perform the wedding when said couple comes to an SDA church in Denmark and the local SDA Pastor refuses to engage in the sin of officiating over such a thing?

I guess that is the point that we have non-SDA clery performing services at one of our churches.

Absolute nonsense.

Pam got it right.

The law only applies to the State Lutheran church.

It does not apply to other denominations.

[Gregory Matthews]

Bob said:

Quote:

But there is a bigger issue here - and that is that every attempt by the states to change constitutions and write laws protecting Christians against this issue has been struck down by their own court system.

To say that every attempt has been struck down is a generalization that could be debated and typically comes from someone who does not understand the legal system and/or does not have their facts correct.

In any case, speaking of our legal system, it is the role of the superior courts to uphold the Constitution and to strike down the laws that violate the Constitution. So, if such a court strikes down a law, it will likely be because the law is determined to violate the Constitution.

Let me go out on a limb and give an example. I will not attempt to predict how the Supreme Court will rule in the Hobby Lobby case. But, whichever way it rules, it will decide what is Constitutional for the set of circumstances that are decided by the Hobby Lobby case.

In addition, the Hobby Lobby case is not a "slam dunk." The issue is important to people on both sides if the issue. Both sides have raised valid issues that should be decided. IOW, it just may be that the Court should decide against the owners of Hobby Lobby.

[BobRyan]

Bob said:

Quote:

But there is a bigger issue here - and that is that every attempt by the states to change constitutions and write laws protecting Christians against this issue has been struck down by their own court system.

To say that every attempt has been struck down is a generalization that could be debated and typically comes from someone who does not understand the legal system and/or does not have their facts correct.

Feel free to point out even one case where when challenged the supreme court of any state in the union has upheld such laws against gay marriage such that the law remains affirmed by the court system today.

in Christ,

Bob

[bonnie]

Somehow it seems that this will not go beyond where it is at.

The constant chipping away soon will be us.

After a record of affirming that Yes,gay or lesbian marriage is a right and is supported,who thinks someone is going to listen when we finally get around to saying,"Not us,you know even tho we support this,we don't believe it is right".

It isn't enough to have civil unions,it has to be that all think this is simply normal and right.If you don't agree with that you are less than.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Feel free to point out even one case where when challenged the supreme court of any state in the union has upheld such laws against gay marriage such that the law remains affirmed by the court system today.

O.K. You are making a more narrow application than I understood.

I included the Federal system, along with the State system, in my comment in view of the fact that these cases are often tried in Federal court as Federal issues are often alleged to be involved.

[BobRyan]

The point is not changed by which level of court is rolling back the State law so long as the end result is that the law makers for that state are consistently being set aside and nothing has been found so far that will stop this thing.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Somehow it seems that this will not go beyond where it is at.

The constant chipping away soon will be us.

After a record of affirming that Yes,gay or lesbian marriage is a right and is supported,who thinks someone is going to listen when we finally get around to saying,"Not us,you know even tho we support this,we don't believe it is right".

It isn't enough to have civil unions,it has to be that all think this is simply normal and right.If you don't agree with that you are less than.

When members of our church come to the local congregation and demand a same-sex marriage wedding take place - and we say "no" and oh by the way you are fellowshipped ... I wonder how that will play out 'in the courts' of tomorrow.

in Christ,

Bob