Atheistforums.com

Humanities Section => Political/Government General Discussion => Topic started by: La Dolce Vita on March 17, 2013, 08:45:35 AM

Title: "Church, marry gays or lose the right to do marriages"
Post by: La Dolce Vita on March 17, 2013, 08:45:35 AM
One of the parties in the current in-power "red-green" coalition in Norway has made an ultimatum to the Church of Norway. "Marry gays and lesbians or lose the right to marry people altogether". Of course, it's not really the state chuch anymore, as we had separation of church and state only a few years ago, before that we just told them to do fuck themself, these days they could technically refuse - though they are still tied to the government in many ways. It should also be added that the Socialist Left Party that's pushing this only have about 5% of the vote, with the Labour Party being the main party in the coalition.

A poll done shows that 26% of the population is for the motion, while 74% is against it, so I doubt this will happen. But I figured you guys, particularly those of you down in Christian America would find news like this amusing.

What do you guys think? Is it right to stop discriminatory organizations (that recieves support from the government!) from practicing hatred, or does freedom of religion top that?
Title:
Post by: Plu on March 17, 2013, 08:48:39 AM
Is it still the church that marries people in Norway? As far as I know in the Netherlands, it's the state that marries people and the whole church part is just for show, because you still have to go down to city hall afterwards to actually sign the legally binding marriage contract.
Title:
Post by: La Dolce Vita on March 17, 2013, 09:07:22 AM
Of course the state can marry you, but if I'm not mistaking churches, mosques, etc. has the state sanctioned right to marry people as well. This is about gays being allowed to have the ceremony in church.
Title:
Post by: Davka on March 17, 2013, 10:20:29 AM
I don't think that privately-owned businesses should be forced to host celebrations to which they are opposed. If the church wants to act like a privately-owned business, it's going to have to admit that it's a business (rather than a charity) and suck it up.

I have long believed that the state should be in charge of legal civil unions, and any ceremonies (religious or otherwise) should be performed privately as a completely separate thing. That way, churches can marry whoever they please, and the church and state are not overlapping at all.
Title:
Post by: Plu on March 17, 2013, 10:24:33 AM
QuoteI have long believed that the state should be in charge of legal civil unions, and any ceremonies (religious or otherwise) should be performed privately as a completely separate thing. That way, churches can marry whoever they please, and the church and state are not overlapping at all.

Yeah, this is what I'm used to as well, I had thought it to be a bit more widespread than it is, apparently.
Title: Re: "Church, marry gays or lose the right to do marriages"
Post by: wolf39us on March 17, 2013, 10:34:02 AM
I think churches are regularly bigoted and need some ass whopping by the people, but by the state?  I thoroughly disagree!  The church should not be "legally" forced to do marriages that they are opposed to.  Church and state should not overlap... even if it benefits society.

Besides, why would any gay couple WANT to get married in front of a bunch of people that think that they are "evil sinners"?
Title:
Post by: La Dolce Vita on March 17, 2013, 11:13:01 AM
Well, you must remember that up until a couple of years ago the state church was just a subordinate institution of the state, and even after church state separation they are still heavily reliant on government support.

If churches had to fend for themselves (which wouldn't be possible as most Norwegians are atheists, and most "christians" don't really believe either, and most certainly don't attend church) I'd agree that they should be able to be as bigoted as they want, but if they want to be supported by the state I don't think they should be allowed to have discriminatory policies.
Title:
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on March 17, 2013, 11:33:48 AM
Marriage is both civil and religious, to most Americans, but the religious component is optional.  Because of that, I don't think churches should be forced to marry people they don't want to marry.
Title:
Post by: Plu on March 17, 2013, 12:01:32 PM
QuoteIf churches had to fend for themselves (which wouldn't be possible as most Norwegians are atheists, and most "christians" don't really believe either, and most certainly don't attend church) I'd agree that they should be able to be as bigoted as they want, but if they want to be supported by the state I don't think they should be allowed to have discriminatory policies.

This basically sums it up.

If they want to be bigoted and decide who can and cannot be married than they will
A) no longer be an extension of the state, which means they aren't allowed to legally marry anyone (even though they can keep the ceremonies for whomever they deem worthy of it)
B) lose their state funding and support and be taxed just like every organisation out there

Right now they're abusing their status by drawing on government funds and performing government services while being in direct opposition to the government on this issue and forcing their own opinion on other people who come looking for said government service.


As soon as they start paying taxes and stop providing government service, they can be just as bigoted as any other company out there, but right now they're existing by virtue of government money, and that means they have to play by government rules.
Title:
Post by: Colanth on March 17, 2013, 02:53:51 PM
In the US (it's different in every country) I think the Church should still be allowed to marry people - as a Church function having nothing to do with the law, much the same way that they can baptize people.  It has Church standing but no legal standing.  If you want to be legally married, you have to be married by the State.  So you can have either marriage or both, but only the State one is recognized by the State.  The Church can recognize that one for Church purposes, or not, as it chooses.

That way, gay or straight, you have the same legal rights and obligations.  If your Church doesn't want to marry you, that's between you and your Church.  And, as Wolf says, why would anyone want to be married by an institution that rejects them for what they are?
Title: Re: "Church, marry gays or lose the right to do marriages"
Post by: Gerard on March 17, 2013, 05:58:21 PM
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"One of the parties in the current in-power "red-green" coalition in Norway has made an ultimatum to the Church of Norway. "Marry gays and lesbians or lose the right to marry people altogether". Of course, it's not really the state chuch anymore, as we had separation of church and state only a few years ago, before that we just told them to do fuck themself, these days they could technically refuse - though they are still tied to the government in many ways. It should also be added that the Socialist Left Party that's pushing this only have about 5% of the vote, with the Labour Party being the main party in the coalition.

A poll done shows that 26% of the population is for the motion, while 74% is against it, so I doubt this will happen. But I figured you guys, particularly those of you down in Christian America would find news like this amusing.

What do you guys think? Is it right to stop discriminatory organizations (that recieves support from the government!) from practicing hatred, or does freedom of religion top that?

Here in the Netherlands all legal marriages are done by a secular registries office of the municipality. After that, a church ceremony can follow. It has no status under the law however. We never had a state church since we became a Kingdom in 1815. Belgium has the same laws. I think that is the best situation imaginable. Churches can do what they like, independent of the state. It is of no consequence outside the private sphere here. A church cannot legally perform marriages in this country at all. A church marriage on it's own is not a legal marriage at all (and in Belgium even illegal conduct). I wonder how that is in the USA....

Gerard
Title: Re: "Church, marry gays or lose the right to do marriages"
Post by: Colanth on March 17, 2013, 08:32:36 PM
Quote from: "Gerard"A church cannot legally perform marriages in this country at all. A church marriage on it's own is not a legal marriage at all (and in Belgium even illegal conduct). I wonder how that is in the USA....
Certain classes of people are allowed, under the law, to perform marriages that are legally binding.  This includes the clergy.  So a clergyperson can perform a religious ceremony which includes what's necessary to constitute a legal marriage.  (Most people think that they're being married solely religiously, but obtaining a marriage license that's recognized by the State.  They're wrong, but no one is going to stir that particular hornets' nest.)  Others who can perform legal marriages include anyone who can legally take an oath (judges, ship captains, etc.)
Title: Re: "Church, marry gays or lose the right to do marriages"
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on March 17, 2013, 08:43:25 PM
Why not just scrap the whole bullshit notion in the first place and acknowledge marriage is like signing for a loan, leasing a house or signing an NFL contract..It's legal mumbo jumbo that entitles the parties special tax breaks, property rights, child custody matters, etc, but short of that is a feel good pile of steaming nothing?
Title: Re: "Church, marry gays or lose the right to do marriages"
Post by: Gerard on March 17, 2013, 09:11:14 PM
Quote from: "Colanth"
Quote from: "Gerard"A church cannot legally perform marriages in this country at all. A church marriage on it's own is not a legal marriage at all (and in Belgium even illegal conduct). I wonder how that is in the USA....
Certain classes of people are allowed, under the law, to perform marriages that are legally binding.  This includes the clergy.  So a clergyperson can perform a religious ceremony which includes what's necessary to constitute a legal marriage.  (Most people think that they're being married solely religiously, but obtaining a marriage license that's recognized by the State.  They're wrong, but no one is going to stir that particular hornets' nest.)  Others who can perform legal marriages include anyone who can legally take an oath (judges, ship captains, etc.)

Aha... Thanks for the clarification. Hence (I think) the expression: "By the power vested in me by the State of (...intoxication)", you sometimes hear in fictional movie or tv US mariages....

In my country ship-captains can perform marriages as well under certain circumstances, as I have heard. One can only hope airline pilots will not be distracted by such a duty...

Gerard
Title: Re: "Church, marry gays or lose the right to do marriages"
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on March 17, 2013, 09:15:53 PM
***cue Abe Vagoda from Joe vs The Volcano: You wanna get married?
Yes!
You wanna get married?
I do..
OK, you're married. Now jump in the volcano!
Title:
Post by: Brian37 on March 17, 2013, 09:43:37 PM
Actually they have never had the "right". Churches are NOT required for a wedding neither is a holy person. You can get married at the justice of the piece. The only thing a holy person does, is sign the paper as a witness. You don't nor have you ever been required by law to have a holy person sign the marriage license.
Title: Re:
Post by: Colanth on March 17, 2013, 10:03:29 PM
Quote from: "Brian37"Actually they have never had the "right". Churches are NOT required for a wedding neither is a holy person. You can get married at the justice of the piece. The only thing a holy person does, is sign the paper as a witness. You don't nor have you ever been required by law to have a holy person sign the marriage license.
You just need someone empowered to accept oaths.  Any ordained clergyperson is so empowered.
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: Gerard on March 17, 2013, 10:07:35 PM
Quote from: "Colanth"
Quote from: "Brian37"Actually they have never had the "right". Churches are NOT required for a wedding neither is a holy person. You can get married at the justice of the piece. The only thing a holy person does, is sign the paper as a witness. You don't nor have you ever been required by law to have a holy person sign the marriage license.
You just need someone empowered to accept oaths.  Any ordained clergyperson is so empowered.

So a clergyman can (in the US) marry people when he performs not just the rite of his church, but the administrative duties required by law as well? That's...... remarkable!

Gerard
Title: Re: "Church, marry gays or lose the right to do marriages"
Post by: AxisMundi on March 18, 2013, 09:39:24 AM
Quote from: "Gerard"
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"One of the parties in the current in-power "red-green" coalition in Norway has made an ultimatum to the Church of Norway. "Marry gays and lesbians or lose the right to marry people altogether". Of course, it's not really the state chuch anymore, as we had separation of church and state only a few years ago, before that we just told them to do fuck themself, these days they could technically refuse - though they are still tied to the government in many ways. It should also be added that the Socialist Left Party that's pushing this only have about 5% of the vote, with the Labour Party being the main party in the coalition.

A poll done shows that 26% of the population is for the motion, while 74% is against it, so I doubt this will happen. But I figured you guys, particularly those of you down in Christian America would find news like this amusing.

What do you guys think? Is it right to stop discriminatory organizations (that recieves support from the government!) from practicing hatred, or does freedom of religion top that?

Here in the Netherlands all legal marriages are done by a secular registries office of the municipality. After that, a church ceremony can follow. It has no status under the law however. We never had a state church since we became a Kingdom in 1815. Belgium has the same laws. I think that is the best situation imaginable. Churches can do what they like, independent of the state. It is of no consequence outside the private sphere here. A church cannot legally perform marriages in this country at all. A church marriage on it's own is not a legal marriage at all (and in Belgium even illegal conduct). I wonder how that is in the USA....

Gerard

Despite the efforts of our theodemocratic crowd to lay claim to marriage, marriage is a legal institution here in the US that some people prefer to enact under the auspices of a religious wedding ceremony.

Marriages are legal when the ceremony, either religious or nonreligious, is conducted by a marriage officiate recognized by the State.

My former wife of 20 plus years and I were married by a Justice, and no mention of anyone's god was made. We wanted a ceremony more in line with our religious beliefs, but "pagan" clergy were not recognized by the State back then. So we did the legal thing, and then had a separate religious ceremony later.

BTW, Gerard, when you talk to "Christian America" you are talking to a minority of Americans.  :wink:
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: Colanth on March 18, 2013, 11:12:35 AM
Quote from: "Gerard"So a clergyman can (in the US) marry people when he performs not just the rite of his church, but the administrative duties required by law as well?
Yes.  In New York, the town clerk can also.  (That's who married my wife and me.)  So can the mayor of most towns and cities.  (That's who was supposed to marry my wife and me.)

QuoteThat's...... remarkable!
To us it's just normal.
Title:
Post by: Jason Harvestdancer on March 21, 2013, 12:53:46 PM
I don't believe churches should receive government stipends as happens in Europe.  But I also don't believe that they should be forced to perform a ceremony.

Nobody should be forced to do business.  There are stories in the US about bakers and the like being sued for not providing services for gay marriages.  Absurd.
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: AxisMundi on March 25, 2013, 03:28:40 AM
Quote from: "Colanth"
Quote from: "Brian37"Actually they have never had the "right". Churches are NOT required for a wedding neither is a holy person. You can get married at the justice of the piece. The only thing a holy person does, is sign the paper as a witness. You don't nor have you ever been required by law to have a holy person sign the marriage license.
You just need someone empowered to accept oaths.  Any ordained clergyperson is so empowered.

IF they are listed among a State's marriage officiants.
Title: Re:
Post by: AxisMundi on March 25, 2013, 03:37:32 AM
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I don't believe churches should receive government stipends as happens in Europe.  But I also don't believe that they should be forced to perform a ceremony.

Nobody should be forced to do business.  There are stories in the US about bakers and the like being sued for not providing services for gay marriages.  Absurd.

We have the idea of "protected classes" here, that are linked to our Constitutional Rights.

These protected classes include age, religion, disabilities, race, ethnic background, etc. And while not yet at a federal level, many municipalities do include sexual orientation. These are classes of people that have suffered some form of unjustified bias, discrimination, etc. in the past.

If an establishment's main purpose is related to religion, such as a church, they may discriminate on several levels if it is directly related tot heir religion. They cannot be made to conduct a Hindu marriage ceremony for example. And they may also reserve the right to refuse to conduct wedding ceremonies for gay couples, as homosexuality is, apparently, against their religion.

In areas where sexual orientation is a protected class (soon to be the entire country, I hope) a baker may not discriminate against a gay couple any more than a white baker may discriminate against a black couple due to their race.
Title:
Post by: Sal1981 on March 25, 2013, 04:17:14 AM
Marriage, culturally, is just the recognition that people live together. Don't need church or anything else for that, other than some feely ceremonial thing.
Only reason is for legalities really, like taxation and in the event they go separate ways (who has the right to what).
Title:
Post by: hillbillyatheist on March 25, 2013, 11:00:01 AM
I take the position that a church should in no way be sanctioned, funded or anything else by the State. neither should they be exempted from taxation, except to the extent they do charity for the poor and such.

but neither do I think the State has the right to impose upon that church laws that force them to do things which violates their faith.
Exceptions apply, of course, such as when what they do causes harm to unwilling participants such as denying a kid access to a doctor.

not conducting a gay ceremony doesn't apply. the gays can either marry in another church that is okay with it, or just go to a judge, or whatever. Its sad that many in this country don't realize it, but separation of church and state isn't just about protecting atheists and other religious minorities. its about protecting the christian majority too.
Title: Re:
Post by: WitchSabrina on March 25, 2013, 06:56:28 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Marriage is both civil and religious, to most Americans, but the religious component is optional.  Because of that, I don't think churches should be forced to marry people they don't want to marry.

yeah.........we wouldn't want anyone at a church to be hypocritical.   :shock:
LOL

but...actually I agree with you.  Just like you can't pass laws to make people stop being assholes either. So......yanno
Title: Re: "Church, marry gays or lose the right to do marriages"
Post by: GurrenLagann on March 25, 2013, 07:06:15 PM
Quote from: "wolf39us"I think churches are regularly bigoted and need some ass whopping by the people, but by the state?  I thoroughly disagree!  The church should not be "legally" forced to do marriages that they are opposed to.  Church and state should not overlap... even if it benefits society.

Besides, why would any gay couple WANT to get married in front of a bunch of people that think that they are "evil sinners"?

Well, that's an orthodox Christian belief about all people, gay or not. ;)
Title: Re: "Church, marry gays or lose the right to do marriages"
Post by: FrankDK on March 25, 2013, 07:53:37 PM
If I remember correctly from a German friend's wedding, in Germany the state does civil unions, and church (or church-like organizations) do weddings, but the latter are completely optional.  The wedding adds no benefit to those conferred by the civil union.

That makes more sense to me.  The state shouldn't be involved in weddings, which are religious ceremonies.

Same sex couples could then enjoy the same benefits as opposite sex couples by dint of a civil union, and anybody who wanted religious trappings could find some place to act them out.

But I think any specific church should have the right to marry or not anybody they choose.  If they make a bigoted choice, then people will chose against that church.

Frank
Title: Re: "Church, marry gays or lose the right to do marriages"
Post by: The Non Prophet on March 27, 2013, 07:33:05 AM
Good quote, all marriage is fine and if you marry some, you've got to marry them all. I just hate that couples get special privileges just for coupling up. What a completely arbitrary reason to give out benefits to those who just so happen to shackle them-self to someone legally when incentives should be distributed in a more efficient and fair way.

Same with how our money is distributed. This system favors the rich and preys on the poor.
Title: Re: "Church, marry gays or lose the right to do marriages"
Post by: SGOS on March 27, 2013, 09:00:32 AM
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"One of the parties in the current in-power "red-green" coalition in Norway has made an ultimatum to the Church of Norway. "Marry gays and lesbians or lose the right to marry people altogether". Of course, it's not really the state chuch anymore, as we had separation of church and state only a few years ago  
If there is separation of church and state, I don't know how this could be regulated.  Gays could just find another church to marry them, anyway.  Why would they even want to affiliate with a church that is run by assholes for assholes?
Title: Re: "Church, marry gays or lose the right to do marriages"
Post by: La Dolce Vita on March 28, 2013, 11:24:18 AM
Quote from: "SGOS"
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"One of the parties in the current in-power "red-green" coalition in Norway has made an ultimatum to the Church of Norway. "Marry gays and lesbians or lose the right to marry people altogether". Of course, it's not really the state chuch anymore, as we had separation of church and state only a few years ago  
If there is separation of church and state, I don't know how this could be regulated.  Gays could just find another church to marry them, anyway.  Why would they even want to affiliate with a church that is run by assholes for assholes?

Another church? There isn't really any other churches. You might find a stray church of a different denomination some place, but in Norway we really just have the state church - which isn't really the state church anymore, but still uses the name and is tied to the government in most aspects. Yes, it's all quite complicated. The motion would allow priests to excuse themselves for performing such ceremonies, but that they would have to have a priest willing to do this.

I wish we had a true church and state separation. The recent so-called church and state separation thing was really just sybolic, and aside from giving churches more freedom to be intolrant didn't have any particular effect as far as I'm aware.
Title: Re: "Church, marry gays or lose the right to do marriages"
Post by: SGOS on March 28, 2013, 12:09:33 PM
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"Another church? There isn't really any other churches. You might find a stray church of a different denomination some place, but in Norway we really just have the state church - which isn't really the state church anymore, but still uses the name and is tied to the government in most aspects. Yes, it's all quite complicated. The motion would allow priests to excuse themselves for performing such ceremonies, but that they would have to have a priest willing to do this.

I wish we had a true church and state separation. The recent so-called church and state separation thing was really just sybolic, and aside from giving churches more freedom to be intolrant didn't have any particular effect as far as I'm aware.
I didn't know that about Norway.  I kind of picked that up from your earlier post, but then I thought maybe I wasn't reading it correctly.  In the US there are a wide variety of churches, with and without various aspects of the common dogmas associated with Christianity.  I believe the Episcopalian Church will happily marry gays and even accept them as members of their clergy.  So shopping around for the right religion is not uncommon, here.  You can usually find a sect that has a god that you think tells you want you want to hear.
Title:
Post by: La Dolce Vita on March 28, 2013, 12:15:00 PM
It was illigal for the church to deny gays and lesbians the clergy back when it was a part of the state, as it fell under employment discrimination laws. Not sure how that is now.
Title:
Post by: Special B on June 09, 2013, 10:12:32 PM
Quote from: "wolf39us"I think churches are regularly bigoted and need some ass whopping by the people, but by the state?  I thoroughly disagree!  The church should not be "legally" forced to do marriages that they are opposed to.  Church and state should not overlap... even if it benefits society.

Besides, why would any gay couple WANT to get married in front of a bunch of people that think that they are "evil sinners"?

Marriage is a legal contract. It is a govt. issue, not a religious one.

The churches can still do their silly rituals and call them marriages. The state just won't recognize their authority to create marriage contracts. The state always decides who can and cannot marry people. To have the authority to marry people, you have to abide by the law.

It isn't a religious issue in any way shape or form, and the church deserves no defense.