“Of course there will be no progression of the push for homosexual marriage rights to force ministers or churches to acquiesce to homosexual demands to marry them in their churches!” “All we want is the right to be married, that’s all!”
Those seem to be the arguments made against the possibility of further demands being made once the so-called gay rights movement has succeeded in achieving its current aim of what it calls Equal Marriage, which is code for homosexual and lesbian marriage on a par with traditional marriage, which has, in most nations, during most eras, been seen as between a man and a woman, although some cultures allowed polygamous marriage, albeit with a man being married to a number of wives, not to another man.
Those critics of gay marriage who have argued that there is a potential for Equal Marriage to lead to further demands have been largely shouted down or ridiculed by the homosexual marriage lobby, but now there is evidence that the slippery slope theory is being born out, as the Danish Parliament, which was the first to recognise homosexual unions, passed a Bill this week which forces the state Lutheran Church to allow homosexual couples to be married in sanctuaries.
Denmark forces churches to perform same-sex ‘marriages’
BY BEN JOHNSON
COPENHAGEN, DENMARK, June 7, 2012, LifeSiteNews.com
The nation of Denmark has voted to force churches in the established Evangelical Lutheran Church to perform same-sex “marriage” ceremonies inside their sanctuaries, although one-third of all the denomination’s priests say they will not participate in such rituals.
Danish parliament voted by an overwhelming 85-24 margin to compel churches to carry out unions for same-sex couples that are identical to heterosexual marriage celebrations.
The law takes effect June 15.
Since 1997, homosexuals have been able to get “married” in a blessing ceremony after the normal church service. Under the new law, priests may opt out of performing the “wedding” service for theological reasons. However, a bishop must arrange for a replacement. The bill’s prime sponsor – Denmark’s church minister Manu Sareen, who is an agnostic – called the vote “historic. “I think it’s very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married,” he said.
The Danish People’s Party opposed the legislation. “Marriage is as old as man himself, and you can’t change something as fundamental,” said Christian Langballe, the party’s church spokesperson.
Former politician Stig Elling said it was “positive” that “there are so many priests and bishops who are in favour of it.” “We have moved forward,” he said. “It’s 2012.”
The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark has been Denmark’s official state church since 1849.
The question that should be raised here is, what right should a democratically elected Government have to force the Church to do its bidding?
Stig Elling, a former politician claims that this is a move forward because we are in 2012. But how can this be a move forward on any date, past or present, for a nation which is 80% Lutheran Christian?
It is surely a move backwards because now marriage has been redefined and one of the sacraments of the Church has been redefined. The point being that the Government should never be allowed to dictate to the Church how the Church conducts its affairs.
In similar news:
The passage of the Danish bill comes as pro-family activists the world over are warning that the homosexualist agenda is threatening the basic freedoms of religious believers all across the West.
Although the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from dictating church doctrine, religious institutions have already been subjected to government censure or private lawsuits if they refuse to allow homosexual couples to rent their facilities for a ceremony that deeply offends the church’s core doctrines of marriage and family.
The city of Hutchinson, Kansas, recently adopted a non-discrimination statute that would require houses of worship that rent their facilities to the public to allow same-sex “marriages” on the premises.
“If a church has a parish hall that they rent out to the general public, they could not discriminate against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party” such as a same-sex ceremony or reception, according to a city FAQ about the ordinance.
Jacksonville, Florida, is currently considering a similar ordinance.
In January, Judge Solomon Metzger ruled a New Jersey Christian retreat house affiliated with the United Methodist Church could not refuse to rent its premises out for a homosexual “wedding.”
There has to be a separation of Church and State for the Church to be allowed to be truly independent. Once the State tells the Church how to operate it has, in effect, control over the lives of the Christian population in regard to what they believe and how they function, and sets a dangerous precedent for other issues which may arise.
Traditionally Church affairs are dealt with by their Congress or Synod of Bishops, not by the State.
The likelihood is that this will also set a precedent for a gathering movement of a very small minority group, the homosexual community comprises of less than 2% of the population in most developed nations, dictating the familial arrangements of the majority.
Should minority groups be allowed to exercise this kind of power over democratically elected Governments, or should Parliament govern for the people by the people without interfering in the lives of the majority of the people based on minority demands?
Posted by Steve