Irish Bishops vow to 'boycott' weddings over gay marriage

[rossum]

Religious liberty is a basic human right and religious liberty can not be compromised

Religious liberty can and has been compromised. Are you saying that the religious liberty of Aztecs to carry out human sacrifice should not be compromised?

Many different religions have done many different things in the past that would not be acceptable now. The right to carry out human sacrifice to Huitzilopochtli has been withdrawn because it contradicts the right of the sacrificial victim to life.

Where different rights clash then we need to use the courts to resolve the dispute. That is how we resolve disputes in society. That does mean that some parts of religious liberty may be compromised in favour of a different right. “My right to swing my arms stops at the end of your nose.”

rossum

 

[Elizium23]

I work in a parish office. The homosexualists and feminists will not be happy with some of our practices. We have a database and system of categorizing families that begins with a male head of household. If a woman is cohabitating or civilly married or church married to a man, he is always listed first, and specially tagged “Head of household”. We have fields so “Husband”, “Wife”, “Son” and “Daughter” can be attached to a family member. We have no “Spouse 1” and “Spouse 2”, nor “Questioning MTF” or “Surgical FTM”. We have various options for marital status, but no “Homosexual marriage” option. I will be waiting to see how much “acceptance” and “tolerance” will be forced on us by revisions to this database software. I can tell you that our parish has not changed our ways to appease militant feminism, and we will not appease militant homosexualists either.

 

[Lion_IRC]

From The Telegraph UK

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

 

[rossum]

From The Telegraph UK

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.

This is somewhat misleading. The Danish law does not apply to all churches, but only to the established state Lutheran Church. As an established church it has to follow what the government orders. The Danish law does not apply to the Catholic Church in Denmark.

See here for a better explanation:

In a poorly written piece in The Telegraph, we read that ‘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’. Apparently, the Danish parliament voted through the new law which makes it ‘mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages’.

This is, of course, utter nonsense and very poor journalism. The parliamentary vote related only to the mainstream Evangelical Lutheran Church, to which about 80 percent of Danes profess to belong: it is their equivalent of the CofE. Other churches may also offer same-sex marriage services, but only in accordance with their own rules: none is being forced to conduct anything which is contrary to their historical traditions and theological orthodoxy.

As that extract says, the Telegraph piece was poorly written and gave a misleading impression.

rossum

 

[Lion_IRC]

I didnt find the article misleading at all.

It says even if individual priests refuse to perform the ceremony, the churches ‘‘must’’ perform the ceremony using a replacement appointed by the bishop. In other words, the State is compelling the Church to marry gay people.

 

[Lion_IRC]

The State can simply refuse to recognize as legal, any marriages performed by celebrants who are not legally authorized to do so. Thats the leverage they have over Chrches that refuse to perform gay ‘‘marriages’’.

Imagine that! Your traditional, biblical marriage celebrant can marry you before God, but the government refuses to recognize you as lawfully married because the celebrant wasnt duly authorized.

Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Luxembourg…have you seen the divorce rates for those countries!!!

 

[Publisher]

The State can simply refuse to recognize as legal, any marriages performed by celebrants who are not legally authorized to do so. Thats the leverage they have over Chrches that refuse to perform gay ‘‘marriages’’.

Imagine that! Your traditional, biblical marriage celebrant can marry you before God, but the government refuses to recognize you as lawfully married because the celebrant wasnt duly authorized.

Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Luxembourg…have you seen the divorce rates for those countries!!!

All one has to do is go before a justice of the peace…pay their money for their license…tell the JoP “make it short and sweet”…have the license signed…and you’re legally married as far as the state is concerned…THEN have your religous wedding…if a civil marriage in your religious tradition does not equal a sacramental marriage…surely an hour out of your busy schedule to make sure you follow the laws of the state you reside in should be no problem.

 

[Publisher]

I didnt find the article misleading at all.

It says even if individual priests refuse to perform the ceremony, the churches ‘‘must’’ perform the ceremony using a replacement appointed by the bishop. In other words, the State is compelling the Church to marry gay people.

Yes…a state run chuch. Here in the US we have no state run church. Trying to compare the situation in Denmark and draw some nebulous parallel to civil marriage in the United States including same sex couples…has no parallel…we’re not citizens of Denmark…we have no state run church.

Perhaps those that oppose same sex marriage in teh state run chruch should form a branch independent of the state.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I’ve read several studies showing that same-sex relationships are much more prone to infidelity and higher partner-on-partner domestic violence. I guess having no-fault divorce laws in Denmark would make it easier to get out of such ‘‘marriages’’.

 

[rossum]

I didnt find the article misleading at all.

It says even if individual priests refuse to perform the ceremony, the churches ‘‘must’’ perform the ceremony using a replacement appointed by the bishop. In other words, the State is compelling the Church to marry gay people.

It was misleading in that it did not make it clear that the rules only applied to the state Lutheran Church. They did not apply to other churches, such as the Catholic Church.

rossum

 

[Lion_IRC]

It was misleading in that it did not make it clear that the rules only applied to the state Lutheran Church. They did not apply to other churches, such as the Catholic Church.

rossum

The article didnt claim to be referring to every single other church on earth - just the one relevant to people in Denmark. It was a fair generalization IMO.

The biggest issue (as opposed to the red herring about ‘‘other churches’’) is that ANY church at all would be forced to abandon its official biblical doctrine on the sacrament of marriage and instead obey and give its imprimatur the State’s abomination view of marriage.

Lets hope Denmark’s government doesnt do the same for other ‘‘forms’’ of marriage.