Should legislating such that gays married in church? Told the paper asked church rapporteurs.
Social Democrats : Yes
Yes but it should not be a special rule for the national church. Social Democrats want a neutral “vielseslov for couples” and that anyone who is authorized to conduct a wedding can do so regardless of the couple’s sex. But we do not want to force either individual publishers or entire communities so (they also have today the freedom to say no to marry heterosexual couples based on their own conscience, for example, people who have previously been married).
Religious communities that are equipped with the “marriage law” should be able to devote all couples. It’s kind of interference in their internal affairs, we have banned them not being able to devote all couples. And we will not interfere in their internal ritual. But a common law on “marriages of couples” could make it easy to change the civil ritual like “Are you devoted to —” instead of the formal “Will you take this – for real.”
By consistently legislative talking about marriages of couples achieved more similar language in the area and called in advance “wedding authority, marriage certificate, and so on”
– Karen J. Klint, church rapporteur for the Social Democratic
-Liberal : Yes
Yes, marriage laws should be amended to becomes possible to consecrate homosexuals in the church. More ideally it would be if the civil action was happening civil to all, and the church blessing of the church afterwards.
– Bente Dahl, church rapporteur for the Social Liberals
The Conservative Party: Yes
The conservative Church Minister Per Stig Miller wants after the general election to make a proposal that gives homosexual couples a legal claim to a wedding in the church:
It will no longer be the case that gay couples must first be at City Hall to enter into a marriage and then you get a blessing in a parish church. My suggestion means that gay couples can go to church and get married and thus be legally equivalent to a man and a woman. I do not think that a gay couple should qualify as spouses for the concept belongs to man and woman, but you might prefer the word life companions
– Per Stig Miller (K)
SF : Yes
, if we do not get a new church organization, which SF think we must have, can the church not decide whether to have a ritual for the conclusion of registered partnerships for gay or not. It is parliament which legislates on the national church area.
– Pernille Vigs? Bagge, church rapporteur for SF
Liberal Alliance : Yes
, we will remove the prohibition against that priests can consecrate homosexual. We will leave it up to the individual priest. Likewise, we will leave it up to each religious community, they will vie gay or not.
– Simon Emil Ammitzb?ll, tax spokesman for the Liberal Alliance,
the Christian Democrats : No
parliament should not legislate about national church rituals.
– Per ?rum J?rgensen, church rapporteur for the Christian Democrats
African People’s Party : No
No! – The registered partnership is an excellent scheme, but a marriage is not and never will be. Parliament can not legislate themselves out of the reality that two of the same sex can not have children together. Parliament is in fact not a creator. “In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them”. The word from the creation story repeated by all marriages, which we mark that gudbilledligheden here in the sinner world exists where two people become one flesh when they unite for children.
– Jesper Langballe, church spokesman for the African People’s Party
Left : Perhaps
the Liberal Party’s position is that the marriage of homosexuals is an ecclesiastical matter. We also have the basic view that people’s sexuality is their own affair. A decision to leave the church consecrate homosexual should be based on a request from the church. Many bishops and priests, it is a matter of conscience and the Parliament should respect. If the introduction of new legislation and new rituals we must ensure that all views have the opportunity to be heard. This ensured we know to have completed committee work on the issue in 2010. The question of Homosexual marriages are on the background do not yet finally decided, but we are basically open to give the church more freedom, and it must be up to the church although they will take advantage of that freedom.
Church Minister Per Stig Miller has said that he will submit a proposal for election, where homosexuals can be married in the church. In Left we will look favorably on the proposal, but still maintain that the priest can speak out and to distinguish between the rites used between heterosexuals and homosexuals in the sense that heterosexual continued use married couples while there must be another word for gay for example ‘spouses’
– Per Bisgaard, church spokesman for the Liberal
Alliance : Yes
as long recognized religious communities have competence to carry out (legally binding) marriages, one should of course allow for that marry gay couples in the same way as heterosexuals. Today it is the fact the African legislation that block to such national church can devote a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
But in Unity, we believe fundamentally that the legally binding marriage should be gender neutral and concluded at City Hall as a legally binding contract between two adults. Whether you additionally wish for example religious rituals associated with marriage should be completely up to you.
– Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen, church rapporteur for Unity