Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.

No, but they are forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they want to conduct marriages and accept same-sex marriage as part of one of their religious rituals.

No, they're not.

Not in the Netherlands, either. Priests do the ceremony. Government officials do the paperwork that you need to sign.

The religious ceremony is not the actual marriage. It is just a ceremony to affirm the already existing marriage, which is done in a civil ceremony by a civil servant. In the Netherlands, this civil servant is called a 'trouwambtenaar' (not sure how that translates in English) and he/she is often not actually in government service. It is more of a side job, and many priests do it because it is the only way they can conduct marriages in the Netherlands. This never used to be a problem until the government introduced a law that forbid refusing to marry same-sex couples. This led to the problem of the so called 'weigerambtenaar' and the fact that priests are now forced to also marry same-sex couples (which is against their religion) if they want to conduct marriages at all (and in non-protestant denominations it is important to have it done by a priest).
A good solution to this problem would be to allow priests to conduct legal marriages seperate from civil marriage.

A Civil Marriage IS the legal marriage, the Religious ceremony is just window dressing.

Also, I'm going to need a bit more evidence of this "forcing" than just your word for it.

And if that is indeed the law in the Netherlands, how do those priests cope with being forced to marry people that are divorced? Or not even from their religion? Seems to me that if that was true, then those priests were being forced to do things that went against their religion long before same sex marriages were an issue.

http://www.nu.nl/politiek/3792545/weigerambtenaar-definitief-verleden-tijd.html (In Dutch, use a translator)
Currently, the civil marriage is indeed the legal marriage, and that is what is the problem. Making religious marriage also a legal marriage would remove the entire religious argument against same-sex marriage.
Priests have no problem with marrying people who are divorced because while divorce is discouraged, it is not actually forbidden by Church teachings. Marrying religious people also does not run directly counter to religious teachings. Same-sex marriage however does run directly counter to religous teachings which state that marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman.


Also, how is this now going to be in Ireland? Are civil servants now also going to be forced to conduct same-sex marriage or are they still allowed to refuse to do so? And are priests in Ireland able to conduct marriage or works it in the same way as in the Netherlands?

PhantomViper wrote:

Also, I'm going to need a bit more evidence of this "forcing" than just your word for it.

The Dutch government just doesn't hire new "weigerambtenaren" anymore. The ones that already had the job aren't forced to quit.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

http://www.nu.nl/politiek/3792545/weigerambtenaar-definitief-verleden-tijd.html (In Dutch, use a translator)
Currently, the civil marriage is indeed the legal marriage, and that is what is the problem. Making religious marriage also a legal marriage would remove the entire religious argument against same-sex marriage.
Priests have no problem with marrying people who are divorced because while divorce is discouraged, it is not actually forbidden by Church teachings. Marrying religious people also does not run directly counter to religious teachings. Same-sex marriage however does run directly counter to religous teachings which state that marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman.

That article talks about civil servants, not Priests.

Also which church doesn't forbid divorced people from re-marrying? Because the Roman Catholic Church surely does.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.

No, but they are forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they want to conduct marriages and accept same-sex marriage as part of one of their religious rituals.

No, they're not.

Not in the Netherlands, either. Priests do the ceremony. Government officials do the paperwork that you need to sign.

The religious ceremony is not the actual marriage. It is just a ceremony to affirm the already existing marriage, which is done in a civil ceremony by a civil servant. In the Netherlands, this civil servant is called a 'trouwambtenaar' (not sure how that translates in English) and he/she is often not actually in government service. It is more of a side job, and many priests do it because it is the only way they can conduct marriages in the Netherlands. This never used to be a problem until the government introduced a law that forbid refusing to marry same-sex couples. This led to the problem of the so called 'weigerambtenaar' and the fact that priests are now forced to also marry same-sex couples (which is against their religion) if they want to conduct marriages at all (and in non-protestant denominations it is important to have it done by a priest).
A good solution to this problem would be to allow priests to conduct legal marriages seperate from civil marriage.

We are quite far from gay marriage in Ireland here but I'll go for it.

It seems like the religion could 'marry' people without registering with the state, but that this marriage would go unrecognised by the state. The priest could just say 'you are married', god would recognise it, but the state wouldn't.

If you want the benefits of a marriage that the state provides, you'd have to be married by a registered state official, but that would mean that the official would have to perform gay marriages.

Saying 'I want a religious marriage with the benefits the state provides' seems like you're saying 'I want a a state marriage that is unregulated for my group only', which isn't how this kind of thing works.

Ah, but how is this different from the gay marriage issue? After all, gay people could just say 'we are married', they would recognise it, but the state wouldn't.
This doesn't work because when people get married, they also want it to be recognised by everyone, and not just unoffically. And it leads to the problem that once you marry in church, you can't also have a civil marriage because you can't have two marriages or a marriage not conducted by a priest. Therefore it leads to the present situation where the 'church wedding' is just a farce.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

http://www.nu.nl/politiek/3792545/weigerambtenaar-definitief-verleden-tijd.html (In Dutch, use a translator)
Currently, the civil marriage is indeed the legal marriage, and that is what is the problem. Making religious marriage also a legal marriage would remove the entire religious argument against same-sex marriage.
Priests have no problem with marrying people who are divorced because while divorce is discouraged, it is not actually forbidden by Church teachings. Marrying religious people also does not run directly counter to religious teachings. Same-sex marriage however does run directly counter to religous teachings which state that marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman.

That article talks about civil servants, not Priests.

Also which church doesn't forbid divorced people from re-marrying? Because the Roman Catholic Church surely does.

Priests often are civil servants, as it is the only way they are allowed to conduct marriages.
I am not very knowledgeable about the Roman Catholic Church, are you sure it completely forbids divorce?
In any case, I am mainly talking about Orthodox and Calvinist churches, as those are the only ones I am familiar with.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Also, I'm going to need a bit more evidence of this "forcing" than just your word for it.

The Dutch government just doesn't hire new "weigerambtenaren" anymore. The ones that already had the job aren't forced to quit.

I wasn't talking about them being forced to quit, I was talking about Priests in the Netherlands being forced to marry gay couples.

Yes, the Catholic Church completely forbids divorce. That is why people get annulments that retroactively claim the first marriage never existed. It's basically a loophole to allow Catholics to remarry.

True. My mom was still married to my dad 21 years After they broke Up.
Kinda helped ironically. I was able to put widow on my financial aid, getting extra grants.

But her reason was she would always be married to my dad, no matter what, because she can't get a divorce. And this is a man she detested.

Churches in the Netherlands are forced to conduct same sex marriages; however, individual priests can opt out of conducting the ceremony. In that case, the local Bishop is required to find a replacement official. So no, priests are not forced to conduct same sex marriages as IC claimed.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Priests often are civil servants, as it is the only way they are allowed to conduct marriages.

Cool, then you shouldn't have any problems finding an article where a Priest that was also a Civil Servant was forced to marry a gay couple.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I am not very knowledgeable about the Roman Catholic Church, are you sure it completely forbids divorce?
In any case, I am mainly talking about Orthodox and Calvinist churches, as those are the only ones I am familiar with.

Yes, the Catholic Church forbids divorce. If you are a Catholic and you wan't to be re-married (WHY??!!?), then you'll need to get an annulment, which is magnitudes harder than just getting a divorce.

So if you are an Orthodox Christian or a Calvinist, God blesses the marriage of everyone, even people that don't believe in his teachings, but he doesn't bless the marriage of gay people... Got to love these "pick and choose" religions!

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.

No, but they are forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they want to conduct marriages and accept same-sex marriage as part of one of their religious rituals.

No, they're not.

Not in the Netherlands, either. Priests do the ceremony. Government officials do the paperwork that you need to sign.

The religious ceremony is not the actual marriage. It is just a ceremony to affirm the already existing marriage, which is done in a civil ceremony by a civil servant. In the Netherlands, this civil servant is called a 'trouwambtenaar' (not sure how that translates in English) and he/she is often not actually in government service. It is more of a side job, and many priests do it because it is the only way they can conduct marriages in the Netherlands. This never used to be a problem until the government introduced a law that forbid refusing to marry same-sex couples. This led to the problem of the so called 'weigerambtenaar' and the fact that priests are now forced to also marry same-sex couples (which is against their religion) if they want to conduct marriages at all (and in non-protestant denominations it is important to have it done by a priest).
A good solution to this problem would be to allow priests to conduct legal marriages seperate from civil marriage.

We are quite far from gay marriage in Ireland here but I'll go for it.

It seems like the religion could 'marry' people without registering with the state, but that this marriage would go unrecognised by the state. The priest could just say 'you are married', god would recognise it, but the state wouldn't.

If you want the benefits of a marriage that the state provides, you'd have to be married by a registered state official, but that would mean that the official would have to perform gay marriages.

Saying 'I want a religious marriage with the benefits the state provides' seems like you're saying 'I want a a state marriage that is unregulated for my group only', which isn't how this kind of thing works.

Ah, but how is this different from the gay marriage issue? After all, gay people could just say 'we are married', they would recognise it, but the state wouldn't.
This doesn't work because when people get married, they also want it to be recognised by everyone, and not just unoffically. And it leads to the problem that once you marry in church, you can't also have a civil marriage because you can't have two marriages or a marriage not conducted by a priest. Therefore it leads to the present situation where the 'church wedding' is just a farce.

Because, and I cannot emphasise this enough, gay people are not a cultural institution. We don't have a governing body, there are no elders of the gay community to officiate cermemonies (although I'm petitioning Ian Mckellan). There is no gay collective, and no higher gay power to appeal to in order to recognise such a wedding (although again, my vote goes to Mckellan).

The state defines marriage as being legal between two individuals of the same sex, so that's just fine. But if you want a religious wedding, then have one which is recognised by your religious community, and god. God is meant to be more powerful than pencil-pushers; I'm sure He'll understand. However, if you want one backed by the state as well, then you had sure better make sure its performed by an official who abides by the laws of the state.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Churches in the Netherlands are forced to conduct same sex marriages;

Are you sure you aren't mistaking the Netherlands with Denmark? AFAIK that is the law in Denmark but not in the Netherlands.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Churches in the Netherlands are forced to conduct same sex marriages;

Are you sure you aren't mistaking the Netherlands with Denmark? AFAIK that is the law in Denmark but not in the Netherlands.

Ah, yes my mistake. That is the Danish law.

Iron Captain, remember that thing called "separation of church and state" thing we got? Applies to marriage as well

PhantomViper wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Churches in the Netherlands are forced to conduct same sex marriages;

Are you sure you aren't mistaking the Netherlands with Denmark? AFAIK that is the law in Denmark but not in the Netherlands.

Either way, forcing a church to conduct same sex marriages is messed up if it's against the churches doctrine.

Much like churches lobbying for legal changes and trying to force their doctrine into law is messed up.

I just checked by the way and I can't find anything that says that Denmark forces priests to carry out same sex marriages, but I did find something that said a Bishop must find alternative arrangements for a location for the couple if marriage is refused.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Churches in the Netherlands are forced to conduct same sex marriages;

Are you sure you aren't mistaking the Netherlands with Denmark? AFAIK that is the law in Denmark but not in the Netherlands.

Ah, yes my mistake. That is the Danish law.

Do either of you consider that to be troublesome?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
Much like churches lobbying for legal changes and trying to force their doctrine into law is messed up.

I just checked by the way and I can't find anything that says that Denmark forces priests to carry out same sex marriages, but I did find something that said a Bishop must find alternative arrangements for a location for the couple if marriage is refused.

So the onus in on the clergyman to find the alternate accommodations?

That's awfully curious.

Relapse wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Churches in the Netherlands are forced to conduct same sex marriages;

Are you sure you aren't mistaking the Netherlands with Denmark? AFAIK that is the law in Denmark but not in the Netherlands.

Either way, forcing a church to conduct same sex marriages is messed up if it's against the churches doctrine.

Normally I completely agree with you on this point, but the Church of Denmark is the property of the state and not an independent entity. And the church doctrine is defined by the Queen of Denmark and by the Danish parliament, so if they say that gay people can get married in church, then that becomes the Church's new doctrine.

The law allows individual priests the right to refuse, and then the bishop must find an alternate location for the wedding. They're not forced, though it is inconvenient for them to refuse - just as it is inconvenient to be refused a venue for your wedding due to religious bigotry.

(Oh snap, did I use the bigot word again? I did, didn't I!)

 Da Boss wrote:


(Oh snap, did I use the bigot word again? I did, didn't I!)

Yes, you're quite deft at it.

PhantomViper wrote:

Relapse wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Churches in the Netherlands are forced to conduct same sex marriages;

Are you sure you aren't mistaking the Netherlands with Denmark? AFAIK that is the law in Denmark but not in the Netherlands.

Either way, forcing a church to conduct same sex marriages is messed up if it's against the churches doctrine.

Normally I completely agree with you on this point, but the Church of Denmark is the property of the state and not an independent entity. And the church doctrine is defined by the Queen of Denmark and by the Danish parliament, so if they say that gay people can get married in church, then that becomes the Church's new doctrine.

So it is church doctrine. No biggie then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:


(Oh snap, did I use the bigot word again? I did, didn't I!)

Yes, you're quite deft at it.

Take it in the context of the user. He has a hot nut against religion.

 kronk wrote:

Edit: Yes, Kronk isn't fething perfect.

I honestly don't know if I can go on after learning this.

I'm bigoted against bigots. Oh damn.

Relapse: That made me laugh!

I guess it is true though, especially religious interference into state matters. Religion can be a pretty positive force in many other contexts, but I am absolutely anti religious interference in the rule of law.

I also think it's possible to be a bigot about something and still be a nice person in lots of other ways. Like, I'm unfortunately pretty bigoted against Irish Travelers. It's something I try to watch myself for, but I don't succeed. You'd be fair to call me a bigot too, because of that.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Ah, but how is this different from the gay marriage issue? After all, gay people could just say 'we are married', they would recognise it, but the state wouldn't.

It's different because the benefits that (most) gay couples want require legal recognition. The benefits the hypothetical religious couple wants only require a religious ceremony because they don't involve the government at all.

This doesn't work because when people get married, they also want it to be recognised by everyone, and not just unoffically. And it leads to the problem that once you marry in church, you can't also have a civil marriage because you can't have two marriages or a marriage not conducted by a priest. Therefore it leads to the present situation where the 'church wedding' is just a farce.

This makes absolutely no sense. You have your church ceremony and you're married for all religious/social/etc purposes, and then you go to your local courthouse to file some paperwork establishing a legal contract. I really don't understand why any reasonable person would think that it's impossible to have a church wedding and then go sign a contract.

 cincydooley wrote:
So the onus in on the clergyman to find the alternate accommodations?

That's awfully curious.

What's wrong with that? Remember that this is a situation where the clergyman is acting as a representative of the secular government, not as a religious official. It's entirely reasonable for the government to tell its employees that if they want to refuse to do their job they have an obligation to arrange an alternative, just like an employer can require their employees to arrange for someone to cover their shift if they want to take a day off. In fact, the government is being fairly generous here by allowing their employees to refuse to do their job at all. A stricter employer could just say "fine, you're fired".

 Peregrine wrote:


What's wrong with that? Remember that this is a situation where the clergyman is acting as a representative of the secular government, not as a religious official. It's entirely reasonable for the government to tell its employees that if they want to refuse to do their job they have an obligation to arrange an alternative, just like an employer can require their employees to arrange for someone to cover their shift if they want to take a day off. In fact, the government is being fairly generous here by allowing their employees to refuse to do their job at all. A stricter employer could just say "fine, you're fired".

Bear in mind my comment was posted BEFORE it was established that the clergy in that specific instance are employees of the state.

I thought about it, and actually, I wish they'd adopt that here in the US: You can refuse service, but if you do, you have to help them find someone else to bake their cake....

 cincydooley wrote:
Bear in mind my comment was posted BEFORE it was established that the clergy in that specific instance are employees of the state.

Ok then. Correction acknowledged.

I thought about it, and actually, I wish they'd adopt that here in the US: You can refuse service, but if you do, you have to help them find someone else to bake their cake....

In theory this would be an acceptable solution, but I suspect it would have too many issues in practice. It's very easy to quantify whether someone has provided an acceptable substitute for signing a marriage document ("has a person with the authority to sign this put their name here"), but how do you define that for something like a cake? Obviously it wouldn't be an appropriate substitute for a high-end bakery to send people to the local walmart, but where do you draw the line and how do you avoid having the whole thing become just another cash cow for the lawyers to milk?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Ah, but how is this different from the gay marriage issue? After all, gay people could just say 'we are married', they would recognise it, but the state wouldn't.

It's different because the benefits that (most) gay couples want require legal recognition. The benefits the hypothetical religious couple wants only require a religious ceremony because they don't involve the government at all.

This doesn't work because when people get married, they also want it to be recognised by everyone, and not just unoffically. And it leads to the problem that once you marry in church, you can't also have a civil marriage because you can't have two marriages or a marriage not conducted by a priest. Therefore it leads to the present situation where the 'church wedding' is just a farce.

This makes absolutely no sense. You have your church ceremony and you're married for all religious/social/etc purposes, and then you go to your local courthouse to file some paperwork establishing a legal contract. I really don't understand why any reasonable person would think that it's impossible to have a church wedding and then go sign a contract.

In many parts of the US, and many clergy in the US have paid their fees to be a notary public insofar as they wish to be an official signateur on marriage certificates/licenses. Other places I've heard of, the church will require the state license before conducting the actual ceremony (so in a legal sense, the couple are already legally married when they get married)

Also, it seems that IC is arguing that priests are being forced to marry same sex couples, as if there were a black friday line of fabulous people pounding on the doors of their local churches waiting and hoping for a chance to be married in a church.... Maybe European gay people are different than American gays, but the numerous gays that I personally know have absolutely no desire to be married in a church. This is due in part because they are non-believers so they are saying, "What's the point?" and in part because they know that much of the source of the bigotry aimed against them has come from those very same locations. Of my gay friends who do or have lived in states where it's been legalized have had their ceremony either right at the courthouse, or one had theirs in a local brewery/pub, and a couple have had theirs at some very nice parks outside.

So really, not legalizing it because there's a perception that clergy will have to go against their beliefs (and from what I've been reading recently, many to most European clergy aren't so idiotic as their American counterparts) to perform a ceremony, is still rooted in bigotry.

It's kind of fascinating to see people put forward an argument that we should accept their opposition to homosexuality because it is religious and expect that should be the of that, with no further analysis or consideration allowed. But the very same people won't hold back for one second when it comes to discussing the nastier things believed by many Muslims.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You're still over the "hate" line, because marriage is a secular legal contract that has nothing to do with your religion. Adding "because god said so" to your belief doesn't change anything.

It has everything to do with my religion, because this concept of "secular marriage" originates from it. Marriage is one of the Sacred Mysteries, there is no such thing as secular marriage, that would be like saying there is a secular baptism. Marriage, for religious people, goes far beyond being just a simple legal contract.

If I understand the situation from your description, Iron_Captain, it is illegal in the Netherlands to perform religious marriage ceremonies unless the celebrant, usually a priest, is a registered marriage licensor.

Is that correct?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Unless one were of the opinion that said secular institution should be replaced by a religious institution.

Which is an opinion that has virtually no traction in the West for different reasons in different places.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The problem is that law forces the Church to accept secular marriages as valid marriages. Gay marriage, which in Christian teachings is a perversion of the sacred concept of marriage therefore also has to be accept as valid marriage, which would be blasphemy and explains the strong opposition from the Church.

In most circumstances the Church does not have to accept secular marriages as valid marriages. About the only time I could see it being an issue is with respect to certain spousal rights in religiously affiliated hospitals.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The best way out as far as I can see would be to seperate religious marriage and secular marriage completely. In other words, allow religious institutions to conduct their own form of marriage that would be equally legally valid as a secular marriage.

That's pretty much how it works right now, at least in the US.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

So really, not legalizing it because there's a perception that clergy will have to go against their beliefs (and from what I've been reading recently, many to most European clergy aren't so idiotic as their American counterparts) to perform a ceremony, is still rooted in bigotry.

Moreover, clergy (and all other possible marriage officiants) presently have the right to refuse to marry heterosexual couples so there is no reason to presume they would be forced to marry homosexual ones.