"Church, marry gays or lose the right to do marriages"

[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?

[Plu]

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.

[La Dolce Vita]

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.

[Davka]

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.

[Plu]

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.

Yeah, this is what I'm used to as well, I had thought it to be a bit more widespread than it is, apparently.

[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"?

[La Dolce Vita]

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.

[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.

[Plu]

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.

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.

[Colanth]

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?

[Gerard]

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

[Colanth]

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.)

[AllPurposeAtheist]

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?

[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

[AllPurposeAtheist]

***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!