Denmark’s Parliament has approved a law allowing same-sex couples to get married in formal church weddings instead of the short blessing ceremonies that the state’s Lutheran Church currently offers.
Lawmakers voted 85-24 on Thursday to change Denmark’s marriage laws.
The law takes effect June 15 and will put Denmark on par with countries such as Iceland and Sweden that allow full wedding ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples.
In 1989, Denmark became the first country to allow the registration of gay partnerships. Since 1997 gay couples in Denmark can be wed in special blessing ceremonies at the end of regular church service.
33 Comments
Go Demark!
@Pete - typical anti-traditional marriage supporter.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"(LOL)
'Hamlet' Act I, Scene 4
Apparently Shakespeare was a prophet; and a "Homophobe."
Denmark: The Global Communities Canary**
**Miners take caged Canaries with them to use as an early warning device.
Equality: coming soon to a country near you.
Another European country declaring war on Christians and denying freedom of religion. What about churches that do not want to participate in this filth.
John, any minister or priest who does not wish to take part, does not have to. Congrats denmark!!!
"John, any minister or priest who does not wish to take part, does not have to. Congrats denmark!!!"
Obviously disingenuous Ash.
Denmark has an official State religion and an official State Church. Denmark has just declared that relationships that exist in opposition to official Church doctrine must be permitted to be sanctified in the Church.
Does anyone need any more proof that these miscreants are seeking to legislate the absolution of their sins? This cancer must be fought aggressively and unapologetically; there is no middle ground with these heathen.
Randy, The U.S. doesn't have an official religion (much to the dismay of Christianists). Without a significant change to our Constitution, Congress will never be able to force churches to sanction same-sex marriages. Nobody even wants that to happen. You insist on conflating civil marriage with religious ritual because baseless claims and fear mongering are all that you have left.
14th,
This article is about the modern day birthplace of marriage corruption; Denmark.
Try to stay on point.
Umm Randy, reading comprehension would serve you well. 14th made valid points, generally that you are comparing apples to oranges. Our laws do not follow your religion, your morals and absolutely not what you think is a sin.
I agree, that is not Ash, please stop the impersonation.
It allows doesn't force. Also why do you think your so special that gay people would want to get married in your churches. We are much more fabulous than that.
Whether one looks at the Bible, Orthodox Judaism, the Fathers, Popes, or Protestant Reformers, or most world religions, the historical religious witness against sodomy is strong and nearly unanimous.
If defending traditional marriage and refusing to sanction sodomy as its equivalent is purely irrational, hateful, and harmful, and is to be equated with malice, bigotry, and racism, then the full weight of the government could come down on the churches that uphold traditional marriage. This could mean not recognizing the marriages they perform, denying them tax exemption, denying them building permits, labeling their doctrines as unallowable hate speech, teaching children in the public schools that their doctrines are wicked, false and deplorable, and denying them the protections we generally grant to “acceptable” religions. Schools could have as part of their core mission teaching children that those churches are not appropriate guides to acceptable behavior or truths about morals and human nature. Sound farfetched? Look at the sanctions the federal government arrayed against the Mormons in the nineteenth century over marriage.
If unenumerated rights to having one’s sexual inclinations positively sanctioned by government are allowed to trump democracy, precedent, and enumerated rights, there is nothing to stop this.
“Think for a moment of the awesome power of the sexual revolution over law and logic. Is there a single legal doctrine that can stand against the quest for personal sexual fulfillment? Nondiscrimination regimes fall before sex-selective abortion, religious liberty falls before the “right” to free contraception, and free speech is increasingly subordinate to the “right” of a person to feel good about their sexual choices. Thanks to no-fault divorce, a marriage is less binding than a contract (most contracts carry with them stiff legal penalties for breach — not so in divorce court), and now in the eyes of some courts, the entire rationale for the traditional definition of marriage is reduced to nothing more than malice against gays.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/301467/doma-penumbras-strike-again-david-french#
"...and now in the eyes of some courts, the entire rationale for the traditional definition of marriage is reduced to nothing more than malice against gays.”
Indeed.
There is a very great problem involved in a judiciary which arrogates to itself the power to contemptuously set at nought the lawfully expressed will of the people, slander it as animus, and then blithely impose its Brave New Marriage on the people as if we lived in a dictatorship art the good pleasure of these tyrants all dressed up in robes.
It is inconceivable- utterly insane- that the very survival of marriage itself should now hang on the vote of one justice in Washington DC.
Kurt Godel told Albert Einstein, on the way to his citizenship ceremony, that he had found the flaw in the US Constitution, and it consisted in the unchecked power of the judiciary.
Godel was right.
Whichever way Kennedy votes.
If we do not succeed in securing the SCOTUS against the legal conspiracy exemplified most grotesquely by Walker and Reinhardt, then we will repent at leisure.
Pete,
If the subject matter of the article shows your true agenda in a negative light you should avoid commenting; rather than drawing more attention to your wicked designs with feeble attempts at misdirection.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the green curtain."
@pubilus
Just read that article and found it to be quite informative. Even some of the comments were indepth.
Just want to express my appreciation to the ongoing brilliant comments from marriage supporters at this blog...thank you and keep up the excellent work!
A fake troll is posting under my name again! (Comment #7)
I rushed to note that comment #7 is a fake as soon as I saw it, but I now see that others called it out in subsequent posts.
I guess I need to relax and have a little more faith that everyone can easily distinguish my comments from those of the "Ash" troll.
Well, if you're going to hawk pseudo-marriage, might as well have a pseudo-identity.
"Well, if you're going to hawk pseudo-marriage, might as well have a pseudo-identity."
Says the man who had at least 8 fake accounts on Facebook. And how many in NOM?
Anyway, the hypocrisy is astounding.
Yes, Pete it is.
Your hypocrisy is indeed astounding.
For example, I happen to post under my own name here.
It takes a great deal of sophistication to imagine that a sock puppet like yourself is in a position to address questions of internet anonymity.
lol. i find it hilarious that people think im posting under a fake name- my name is Ash, I am a supporter of marriage equality. There may be another person on here called Ash who does not support it, but that does not mean i am trying to impersonate him or her.
@Ash(2)
Well then, judging by your typing style, I know you are not the Ash who frequently posts on these blogs. So I shall call you Ash(2)
Pseudo-Ash.
@Rick
Or that.
Denmark has an official State religion and an official State Church. The United States does not. Churches here have never been forced to marry Muslim or Atheist or Jewish couples, and they will never be forced to marry Gay couples.
Yes, let's call poster #24 Pseudo-Ash, since it doesn't have the common sense to not post under the exact same name as a regular commenter.
That would be like someone coming in and posting under the name "Bryce K." and saying, "but my name is Bryce K.!"
This is the same troll that sent a barrage of over 100 comments under my screen-name a month or so ago (according to the NOM moderator).
"Denmark has an official State religion and an official State Church. The United States does not. Churches here have never been forced to pay for abortion or contraceptive coverage, and they will never be forced to pay for abortion or contraceptive coverage".
Oops.
If it's all the same to you, Jeannette, we are just going to go ahead and fight the marriage corruption movement, rather than be hornswoggled by the smiling reassurances of its Alinskyite proponents.
The Danish State now requires the Danish Church to devise a new church ceremony for a same-sex “wedding” as the traditional ceremony is worded for heterosexual couples.
The effect is that the Danish State now forces the Danish Lutheran Church to devise rites that were never part of its faith tradition and effectively to endorse sodomy, which Luther condemned as unnatural, perverted, and devilish. See Plass, Ewald Martin. What Luther Says: An Anthology, Volume 1, 1959. p. 134. This is a strong argument for the separation of church and state to protect the church from the state. Whether remaining the Lutherans of Denmark will care remains to be seen. The Church should decide if it wants to change its historic faith and rites. One commentator has suggested the appropriate form of the new rite should be an exorcism. That would not be politically correct, but Luther wasn’t politically correct either.
If there are any Lutherans left in Denmark, they will now stand and fight.
If not, then the revivified shell of what was once the Lutherans in Denmark will be animated by Lucifer.
One thing is absolutely, one hundred per cent certain:
No Lutheran will ever conduct, assist or officiate at, or lend any blessing whatever to a union which is a mockery of the Christian Faith.
When Government imposes anti-Lutheran policies on the Lutheran Church, it acts tyranically. The Danish parliament is willfully embedding the supremacy of gay identiting politics into its legal system.
Pro-gay bigotry does not know limits. This is an example of that.