LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

What religion did the Danish church belong to...? Excuse my ignorance

Most of Denmark's religious sector is Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark. It's kind of a weird case in that they have an official state religion and its membership comprises the overwhelming majority of the population, but most Danish are expressly agnostic or atheist — including those who are actually members of ELCD.

edited 20th May '15 8:23:08 AM by Pykrete

Well. To be honest, I cannot find myself agreeing to describing that as a Danish resolution of "forcing" churches to marry same-sex couples. To say it forces them is rather odd though because it doesn't. The priests still have the chance to say "no" to performing a marriage, they simply have to offer a substitute who will.

That's not really forcing the church to accept gay marriage, to me.

If a church is obliged to come up with some priest who'll do it, inside the church and as a celebrant of the church, that's a pretty cut-and-dried case of "forcing the church" to do something. If I understand correctly, Denmark's offering individual priests an opt-out as individuals, but not the church as a church.

That's not really a defense. If you own a religious building, and someone wants to do a ritual in your building that your religion explicitly doesn't approve of, and you're legally compelled to either do it or bring in another celebrant to do it (still in your building), that's kind of a shitty opt-out.

edited 20th May '15 8:28:29 AM by Pykrete

Just because preacher 1's religion doesn't approve doesn't mean that preacher 2's religion doesn't. Preacher 2 may not consider himself as being "forced" to do anything.

That comes with being a state religion. If you wanna be the official religion of a democracy, you will comply to the demands of that democracy. Don't like it stop being the official religion and become like any other.

X3 It's not his building, the building belongs to the Church and (due to a state church) the state. It's the goverment' building.

It's a state church thing, the same way that in the UK the Church of England has to be willing to bury you. Even if you're not a member of the Church they have to give you the spot because the Church is part of the state and the state has that duty to you.

Then I beseech people to correct my ignorance if anything but, if they are not focing the church, then what is this unilateral organization refered to? If there are priests of the same church willing to do it, and some not, it does not sound like an united organization to me.

Contrast with say, catholicism. They could force the Vatican if anything and that would be a ase of forcing. But if all there are is a loose group of individuals who bicker with each other then some ground rules that aren't forcing them to do things aginst those who are against it seems pretty resonable and not forcing to me since that's as far as even they can get

My understanding is that it's The Church (which is controlled by the state) is forcing priests to either carry out such marriages or find someone who will, regardless of their personal beliefs.

Well if it is controlled by the state they are less priests and more government workers who are being given a sane, logical regulation that takes into account the individual preferences and does not pit any confrontation.

That does not sound to me like force. It wouldn't even make Obi wan Kenobi's ghost spark nearby at the moment you needed him the most.

The situation with the Danish church sounds to me like the deal with military chaplains - their job isn't just to take care of the tenets of their religion, it's to help the followers of every religion to fulfill their religious obligations. Christian chaplains have to help the Wiccans on board by arranging time and space for them to worship, whether or not the chaplain agrees with them; chaplains are required to give counseling and aid to LGBT servicemembers even if their religion is expressly against it; I'm pretty sure if I dropped the $40 to become a Pastafarian priest they would have to help me plan activities for Talk Like a Pirate Day. But this is because chaplains are military members first, and religious leaders second^note with some exceptions, such as chaplains not being considered part of the chain of command, etc. If the Danish church is owned/controlled by the state, then they're enforcing law on their own property and to their own employees - there's no conflict there IMO.

Contrast that to the US, where any mention of a church having to bow to legislation like that would be met with ire on both sides of the aisle - conservatives fearing government running their church, and liberals fearing it will lead to the church running the government.

They're still priests, the same way the Archbishop of Canterbury is still a priest, even if he does technically answer to the head of the British State.

A church being s state church doesn't make it any less a church or its priests any less priests.

They are priests, but they are also government employees. And government employees are the last people who need to be able to discriminate in a free society. It's more than enough of a compromise that they are allowed to pass the job off on someone who isn't so offended.

Not sure if the Archbishop of Canterbury is a good example given how he does not respond to the Queen...who does nothing :P

At least not in practice

Eh, the Danish situation doesn't seem too bad to me. It's not exactly like poor Danish priests are getting curbstomped by the rainbow jackboot of gay marriage (not that anyone here was presenting it that way, but). The Lutheran church is a) a part of the Danish state and b) a church that officially blesses same-sex weddings. It is officially their policy to unite members of the church under God should they so choose, no matter their gender. If an individual priest disagrees, they can opt out, but they're part of a church that does gay marriage ceremonies.

If Denmark's law applies ONLY to the state church, then you could indeed make a legal argument for compelling it. If that church already allows and conducts "SSMs," then that weakens its position even further (both rhetorically and legally).

So let this be a lesson to other churches out there about the wisdom of having such animals as "state churches" ... and about rendering unto Caesar a voting share in matters that the church accounts as belonging to God.

edited 20th May '15 11:39:55 AM by Jhimmibhob

The Dannish Church, as a religion, blesses same sex marriage. Some of the priests don't care to do this, but the religious hierarchy says that they should find someone else to do it. Not just the state.

From a swift google, it looks like the law in Denmark only requires the Church of Denmark to perform same-sex weddings. The Catholic Church has no such obligation, and I can't see any reason for non-Catholic, non-Co D churches to be compelled by that law.

So yay, everyone's happy except the people opposed to gay marrriage in the Co D, but they'll just have to deal with it.

edited 20th May '15 2:39:26 PM by majoraoftime

Well even if they are not happy they can opt out of doing them so they can keep their heads in the sand for as long as they like. Doesnt sound like forcing to me at all.

State church, state's rules.

It should be noted first that you're correct that the ruling applies only to the state church (which is why the Vatican wasn't too worried about it).

However, the case is still murky.

- The court ruling happened several months before the Church of Denmark doctrinally approved same-sex marriage. For about half a year, it was forced to perform ceremony against doctrine — even if most of the priests were willing.

- Potential constitutional violation. The Danish Constitution states that the church is "supported" by the state, but the authority it has over the church is fuzzy and may well have overstepped. The situation is pretty similar to the Anglican Church.

- If the above isn't a constitutional violation and the state does have that authority, it's potentially a constitutional paradox. The Danish Constitution also forces the ELCD to follow general Lutheran doctrine, which forbids same-sex marriage.

edited 20th May '15 7:29:17 PM by Pykrete

Maybe, just maybe...The Lutheran Doctrine can go fuck itself? I mean. I cannot think of a single religious institution that has not taken back something they said in the past, like slavery, segregation, or even heliocentrism. It's not the end of the world or the Lutheran church if this one slight thing is changed.

Really? You don't see anything wrong with a government dictating the doctrine of a church?

Indeed. A religious doctrine based around everything Martin Luther believed would be extremely hard to sell.

edited 21st May '15 8:50:06 AM by Morgikit