Denmark’s minister for ecclesiastical affairs has assured the head of the nation’s sole Catholic diocese that the new law requiring churches to solemnize same-sex marriages will apply only to the official Lutheran church.
“One never knows,” cautions Bishop Czeslaw Kozon of Copenhagen. “Indeed there have been voices who suggested this law should be obligatory for everybody.”
The law permits individual ministers to refuse to conduct same-sex marriages, which have been legal in Denmark since 1997.
51 Comments
"Your Church wont be forced to marry gay couples!"
(until they are forced to "marry" gay couples)
Good one Fitz. Sounds like Obama talk.
"Our lies were proven to be lies so we'll just add the word 'yet' at the end of the headline because even though our lie is a lie today it could happen someday somewhere maybe and that justifies our lying to you now and oh yeah - send us money"
We're all quite familiar with the opposition's methodology: deconstruct and redefine marriage one step at a time, one group at a time. It's death (to marriage) by a thousand cuts.
14th,
Did you not read the part where the official state church must perform same-gender marriages...? Your "who are you going to believe; me, or your damn lying eyes?" routine has just about ran its course.
14th
As a matter of fact (not conjecture)...the Luthran Church in Dennmark has been forced by the legislature to adopt full-fledged gay "marriage" rituals for same-sex couples.
This was not the choice of internal Church policies, but an act of law... forcing a religious organization to change its theology on marriage.
set...game..match
Barb: Six states plus DC have marriage equality. Which churches have been forced to perform same-sex marriages? Why can't you just admit that NOM is run by pathological liars? Last week it the lie about Navy chaplains which was easily disproven by a PDF of a letter.
Fitz: You're missing the obvious here. This is the official church of Denmark. It is government run. The U.S. does not have government run churches - its kind if the thing that led to the founding of our country.is any of this getting through to you or do I need to draw you a picture? Don't worry, you can let go of this lie, NOM will give you a new one to accept blindly tomorrow!
Well, all things considered, Ash, I think the safe play is to crush gay marriage politically.
It's the only way to be sure
Sorry, meant 14th.
14th,
Whether the churches in Denmark are run by the government or not, does not change the fact that the government in that country is wrong on SSM and homosexuality.
Leo. The fact that it's the official church IS the central issue here. So now you're just back to "cuz it's just wrong" which is really a matter of opinion and all the anti-equality side has. Thanks for unintentionally proving my point that NOM is trying to create fiction around the "consequences" of marriage equality in order to validate their desire to enshrine their opinion and predjudice into the law.
"So now you're just back to "cuz it's just wrong" which is really a matter of opinion and all the anti-equality side has."
That's more than enough, as you will see again come November.
At the end of the day only one view concerning marriage can prevail, 14th, and it isn't going to be yours.
14th is correct, the hyperbole and misdirection use by NOM is nothing less than shoddy manipulative tabloid-style writing. 14th was quick to point out the intentional lie in NOM's posting about chaplains and not one NOMer acknowledged it. Your loyalty to the liars betray you, NOMers.
Yup.
The only way to be sure.....
14th
I am not missing anything...I am aware of this countries unique religious heritage. Never-the-less, here is a specific instance of an entire Church (the Lutheran Church of Denmark) being forced to mary same-sex couples.
This fact is in direct contradiction to the prolonged insistance and common canard that "Your Church wont be forced to mary same-sex couples!"
Here it is happening...and sonner rather than latter.
Is this lckly to happen in this country? Perhaps not immediatley, but thats hardly the point now is it?
There are a myraid of different avenues the law could take to put pressure on religious insitutions to violate their beliefs. Much like the HHS mandate, the barring of Catholic adoption agenicies in Mass...
France has a system were the only officially recognized marriages are those performed by a State official...and religious organizations dont take any formal legal role in marrying individuals... (its just the religious ceremony)
So their are multiple avenues and approaches that encroach on religious liberty and marriage.
But I digresss...because as a matter of fact here is a Church being forced by the State to "mary" same-sex couples contrary to their doctrine...
The canard has been exposed....My concerns about marriage extend beyond the boundries of the United States and always will...
14th
I am not missing anything...I am aware of this countries unique religious heritage. Never-the-less, here is a specific instance of an entire Church (the Lutheran Church of Denmark) being forced to mary same-sex couples.
My concerns about marriage extend beyond the boundries of the United States and always will...
This fact is in direct contradiction to the prolonged insistance and common canard that "Your Church wont be forced to mary same-sex couples!"
Here it is happening...and sonner rather than latter.
Is this likely to happen in this country? Perhaps not immediatley, but thats hardly the point now is it?
There are a myraid of different avenues the law could take to put pressure on religious insitutions to violate their beliefs. Much like the HHS mandate, the barring of Catholic adoption agenicies in Mass...
France has a system were the only officially recognized marriages are those performed by a State official...and religious organizations dont take any formal legal role in marrying individuals... (its just the religious ceremony)
So their are multiple avenues and approaches that encroach on religious liberty and marriage.
But I digresss...because as a matter of fact here is a Church being forced by the State to "mary" same-sex couples contrary to their doctrine...
The canard has been exposed....
Pete, Nice to see a sane commenter here.
Sadly, none of NOM's supporters ever seem to care about NOM's repeating pattern of deception. Apparently they're a collection of moral relativists, something that surprises me.
tam - no desception is present. The State of Denmark has now forced the Lutheran Church of Denmark to perform same-sex "marriages" contrary to there theology..
This is more than fair to point out since mutiple canards abound about how same-sex "marriage" wont effect religious freedom.
And specifically the often heard canard "Your Church wont be forced to mary same-sex couples" has now been specificaaly refuted as a matter of fact for all members of the Lutheran Faith.
Actually, Fitz, I was referring to a more general pattern of deception, including NOM's falsehoods about naval chaplains being required to perform same-sex weddings, and NOM'S recent deceptive graphic about "two moms vs. mom and dad" in reference to a study that was not about "two moms."
These deceptions have been pointed out repeatedly, yet none of NOM's followers seem to care.
Fritz:
"This is more than fair to point out since mutiple canards abound about how same-sex "marriage" wont effect religious freedom."
As others have pointed out, Fritz, instead of a state church, we have that 1st amendment thing here. It just isn't going to happen. Ever hear of a church being forced to marry an interracial couple?: Ever hear of the Caltholic Church being forced to marry a divorced person? Some pastors won't marry anyone who hasn't undergone premarital counseling. Churches remain completely free to deny a marriage ceremony to anyone for any reason they deem fit.
It's Fitz, not Fritz. Apologies.
Fitz, You still seem to having a lot of difficulty processing how the fact that it's the official state church impacts this discussion and your defense of NOM's false claims. Ponder it for a bit. We'll wait....
Tam- Im not aware of the naval chaplain buisness but the "two moms" was addressed in that post. The Washinton Times carried that headline and NOM simply posted the graphic. Even so, its not inncorrect to say that research, while not confining itself to same-sex "married" parents...it did infact include dual parenting by homosexuals under its general rubric. These issues you have dont seem to add up to a campaign of deception as you seem to infer.
14th - I have addressed your comments at leagth... For some reason they have been held in moderation...hopefully they will be up soon.
Bruce (writes)
"As others have pointed out, Fritz, instead of a state church, we have that 1st amendment thing here. It just isn't going to happen. Ever hear of a church being forced to marry an interracial couple?: Ever hear of the Caltholic Church being forced to marry a divorced person? Some pastors won't marry anyone who hasn't undergone premarital counseling. Churches remain completely free to deny a marriage ceremony to anyone for any reason they deem fit."
It has happened, just not in the United States yet... My concern for marriage dosent end with my country alone but encompasses the entirity of western civilization...
There is nothing factually inaccurate or misleading about this headline. Were the gay left has been able to force religions to 'marry' same-sex couples- they have.
This is contrary to the often heard claim that this would "never happen" - it has happened..
Do you an others denounce Denmark for forcing the Lutheran Church to act against it principles?
The article is about Catholics in Denmark. The question is can the Danish Parliament force the Danish Catholic Church to devise a rite for same sex “marriages” and force the Danish Catholic Church to perform them? The answer is no, at least not yet. The law has not “evolved” that far yet. But given the latest evolutionary step, is there anything in Danish jurisprudence that would prevent this if the Danish Parliament so decreed? And would the U.S. gay lobby cheer such a step as they have cheered the imposition of such rites on the Danish Lutheran Church?
The current Danish law allows any Lutheran pastor to decline to perform the newly imposed and yet to be developed rite. Is there anything in Danish jurisprudence that would prevent the law from taking the evolutionary step of defrocking such a recalcitrant priest? And if refusing to perform gay marriages is purely a mark of hatred and bigotry, why should the Danish Church be allowed to pay, retain, protect, or harbor priests or pastors who are hatemongers and bigots?
I know, in the phrase of the thirties novel, “it can’t happen here.” But that is true only if we are vigilant in preserving our liberties, lest they be “evolved” away. The universal cheer with which the events in Denmark were received and reported in the gay press leads me to believe that the gay lobby would impose such changes in this country if they had the power to do so. They do not have that power, but it gives me no confidence in them when they exercise such little restraint in countries where they have the power. Ponder that, if you will. Christians welcoming the developments in Denmark are like lambs welcoming mint sauce.
Rick, Where did you buy your crystal ball? Doesn't it show you that gay people will always exist? Doesn't it show you that they won't stop fighting until they've obtained their full civil rights? If not, you should get a refund because your crystal ball is defective.
14th,
Aren’t you soothsayer that is constantly prognosticating that mandated acceptance of your depravity will not affect anyone else...?
14th:
No doubt the homosexual will always be with us.
No doubt the homosexualist movement made a grave error in judgement in targeting marriage.
My crystal ball is 33 for 33.
Speaking of crystal balls........
http://www.businessinsider.com/barack-obama-african-american-vote-black-north-carolina-2012-6
Hey Rick, what happens IF one of the states vote to allow same-sex marriage? Would you defend the voices of the people in that state? I'm betting nope...
Delano will likely just dodge the question and state that the voters will never allow same-sex marriage. I'd be pleasantly surprise by a different response from him.
I am from Denmark and I know that over 70% of my country supports this law. Pastors can claim exemption if they want but most are tolerant of gay relationships and therefore have no quarrel with perform the ceremonies. I am so proud of my beautiful country. It is one of the happiest countries in the world according to research. Also it was the first country to provide for registered partnerships in 1989. Clearly this is proof that homosexuality does not harm anyone!
Rick thinks that discrimination is justification for itself. How ignorant. Plenty of states had bans on mixed race marriage. SCOTUS upheld them in Pace. He is a fool for thinking his bigotry will prevail.
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-03-03-20110303pewmarriage3.png
'Rick thinks that discrimination is justification for itself'
Society discriminates all the time, for the benefit of society itself. Marriage is no different in that respect. We have heard and SEEN how SSM is affecting society in a negative way. What we haven't seen is just how SSM would affect society in a positive way. There may just be a few instances in which it would be a benefit, but I believe the damage done to society would be greater than any benefits received.
Bryce, 14th:
The voters will never allow same-sex marriage.
Happy to disappoint you
"And if refusing to perform gay marriages is purely a mark of hatred and bigotry, why should the Danish Church be allowed to pay, retain, protect, or harbor priests or pastors who are hatemongers and bigots? "
Excellent question.
It is an excellent question, which shows the insuperable logical disasters which inevitably follow on a wrong definition of marriage at law.
This is for all the marbles.
Only one view of marriage can prevail, and that view will, as a legal necessity, completely obliterate its opposition.
There is no logical congruence between marriage and same sex unions.
The attempt to hammer the square peg into the round hole is futile.
One view or the other.
For all the marbles.
Interesting article on family dissolution and consequences in Scandinavian countries, as related to legalization of SSM and its direct correlation to the rise in out of wedlock births:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0079.html
Great article DoE. And a great reason for everyone to vote Republican this November.
It's time to start reversing direction on the welfare state in this country and protecting religion from liberal attacks. Getting rid of the Dept. of Education would be a great move towards ending liberal indoctrination of young children in public schools.
"The voters will never allow same-sex marriage."
1. http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-03-03-20110303pewmarriage3.png
2. Civil rights aren't based on popularity contests or the ability of conservative activists to get questions on a ballot during Republican primaries.
3. The courts have been increasingly striking down marriage bans.
4. Gay people aren't going away. They'll continue to form families and fight for the rights that protect them.
5. Unlike sexual orientation, being an ignorant anti-gay bigot is a behavioral choice. Change is possible, Rick. It's not too late for you.
You have a persistent tendency to confuse voters with poll-respondents, 14th.
This lack of distinction in thought is, of course, one of the reasons why we win elections while you win polls.
The co-conspirators in the courts have cobbled together the mutually contradictory "arguments" in the Prop 8 and DOMA cases are now frantically trying to get the Prop 8 case away from SCOTUS.
They know a sure-fire smack down when they see one.
Gay people are free not to go away, and we will address the adoption question in due course. First things first.
As for your tired and impotent invective, 14th, it plays well in San Francisco.
14th (writes)
"The courts have been increasingly striking down marriage bans."
This is simply not the case as a matter of fact. What you fail to realize is that it is your activists who picked the juristinctions and courts on which you have filed suit.
Despite this fact you have actually lost more cases than you have won. However; such losses become a "dog bites man story" - These loses are underreported - while your victories are a "man bites dog" story-- i.e. -newsworthy..
This may be the origin of what I believe is your false sense of impending victory..
I believe if you looked at the actuall string of legal victories compared to losses you might realize that courts are much more hesitant to make this move than you seem to think...
When you couple this with our political victories at the polls you may come to realize why your legal advocates are trying to avoid a Supreme Court showdown on the direct merits of your 14th amendment claims.
The bride-groom requirement of marriage law is not a marriage ban. It is the basis of marriage law.
Chairm, Who are you trying to convince? Of course amendments are bans on same-sex marriage. That's the entire point of them. Notice that NOM tags posts with "same-sex marriage" and not "basis of marriage law". It's quite telling you can't even acknowledge the primary purpose of your campaign.
Pretty weak, 14th.
The wolf at the door is SS"M", obviously.
But we owe you, ironically, thanks for having motivated us to form NOM and so possess an organizing focus for not only the defeat of the appalling marriage corruption movement, but also for future campaigns in defense of marriage and family.
Rick, NOM was formed specifically to remove an existing right - the right of gay couples in California to enter into a civil marriage. Nothing you can say will ever change that FACT.
These countries have an "official" church. We don't. No church in this country is forced to marry anyone. Period. Even Judges, ship boat captions, and notary publics can pick and choose at their discretion.
This goes back to the brilliance of our founders - as in setting up our country as a secular state to avoid these idiotic issues.
14th gets it wrong again.
The CA marriage amendment was formed via a vote initiated process. It was written (ie formed) while the law in CA entailed the bride-groom requirement. A requirement that has always beeen the asis for marriage law even before CA became a state in the union. A requirement that was affirmed in the legal system throughout the history of CA. A requireent that was explicitly affirmed with a direct vote of citizens in the year 2000. A requirement that was reaffirmed in the amendment that was formed long before the matter was contested by SSMers in CA and before it was contested by SSMers in that state's high court. It was again affirmed by citizens in the ratifcation of the CA marriage amendment and subsequently by the state's high court.
When an SSMer blatantly tries to rewrite history -- even very recent history -- it is clear that the SSMer denies truth and that the blatant falsehoods are the basis of SSM. Falsehoods willfully told in ts way demonstrates that the SSMer is not a trustworthy participant in serious discussions of substance.
14th stands accused by his own words. Again.
_ _ _ _ _ _
Meanwhile...
The basis of marriage is two-sexed and hence the bride-groom requirement is not a ban.
The choice to form a nonmarita0l arrangement is a liberty exercised and not a right denied. The marriage law and its basis neither bans nor outlaws such a choice.
14h is against equal treatment based on what SSM is but shows a desire to impose favoritism for the gay identity group. There is no good reason to favr the gay subset of the one-sexed scenario whish is merely an unexceptional segment of the wide and diverse spectrum of lawful (ie not banned) relationship types and living arrangements that populate the nonmarriage category.
14th does ot really believe 14th's own complaint based on the gay emhasis. 14th demands that gyness is the basis for imposing on all of society the unjust favoritism into the law and against equal treatment. Gayness is supposedly an unjust basis for lawmaking on this matter but SSMers cling to their double standard.
Also readers will note that when marriage defenders use the peculair terms of SSMers ... such as "same-sex marriage" ... out of courtesy or out of a common effort to use terms familiar in headlines, well, the SSMers are fond of declaring a propagandic victory and thus missing the subsantive disagreement on the actual issue of marriage law.
14th is a propagandist in this way. His own words are the triumph of stupidity over intellectual and moral seriousness. To believe such stupidity,sadly, 14th needs to becme more and more stupid in word and action. This belies the dependency of the SSM smear campain on corruption and dumbing down public discourse. That downward spiral is the SSM campaign's regressive triumph over justiceand reason and morality.
Readers can take that as fair warning of what the opposition to marriage means to society. It means profound harm.