Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bryan Preston

Bio

June 10, 2014 - 11:26 am

Now in Denmark. Soon everywhere else.

The country’s parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.

Denmark’s church minister, Manu Sareen, called the vote “historic”.

It’s certainly that.

“Marriage is as old as man himself, and you can’t change something as fundamental,” the party’s church spokesperson Christian Langballe said during the debate. “Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman.”

Karsten Nissen, the Bishop of Viborg, who is refusing to carry out the ceremonies, has warned that the new law risks “splitting the church”.

Nah, it won’t really split the church. It will destroy it. Or at least, send it underground. Christians in Denmark will have to go crypto pretty soon.

Denmark isn’t quite the United States. It has an official Evangelical Lutheran Church that is supported by taxpayer money. This bill is not limited to the state-run church. All churches in Denmark must comply.

Here’s a fun twist: Manu Sareen of the Danish Social Liberal Party is the parliamentarian who pushed the bill that forces churches to perform same-sex weddings. Sareen is also the minister for ecclesiastical affairs. But he isn’t much of a man of faith.

“The debate has been really tough,” said Mr Sareen, an agnostic who has pushed hard for the legislation since taking his post last autumn.

Denmark offered civil unions for gay couples in 1989. That wasn’t enough. The Danish church tried to reserve the definition of marriage to itself. That didn’t work. Now Denmark’s agnostic minister of church affairs is forcing every Danish church to violate what’s left of its teachings.

Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.
Top Rated Comments   
For me this ruling is intolerable. If a homosexual male wants to marry another homosexual male then find a church that approves homosexual marriage and have at it. But to force all church's, every church and I'm guessing this ruling also applies to Synagogues and Mosques, to perform homosexual marriage is wrong. What's next? Forcing every home in Denmark to have their own in house homosexual to show their approval?
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think what should happen, should that ruling come to America, is that the church should go "underground" meaning services held in private homes, and the tax deduction be damned. Let the Mosques have it while they preach death of homosexuals and the damn government turns a blind eye to it. I don't see how anyone can scream about "homophobia" and "Islamophobia" in the same breath. Truly this is double-speak. Orwell would be proud, or ashamed, I'm not sure which, of the left in the USA.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Denmark’s church minister,..."

That right there is the problem.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (115)
All Comments   (115)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
"Soon everywhere else" doesn't follow.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
It is pretty funny to see this happening. Are the muslims going to just dance over the rainbow mosque?

This is going to be the beginning of something....
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
For me this ruling is intolerable. If a homosexual male wants to marry another homosexual male then find a church that approves homosexual marriage and have at it. But to force all church's, every church and I'm guessing this ruling also applies to Synagogues and Mosques, to perform homosexual marriage is wrong. What's next? Forcing every home in Denmark to have their own in house homosexual to show their approval?
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
WHY WILL THE HOMOSEXUAL LOBBY NOT TALK ABOUT AIDS AND OTHER DISEASES?

Why is one who mentions that sodomy is filthy, disgusting, and dangerous called a hater? Parents tell their children, when they put dirt into their mouths that it is a filthy thing to do - at least I did with mine. Perhaps I hated my children? Or perhaps I hate those whom I would warn?

Ridiculous. But, hey, blunt truth can be uncomfortable, so naming the speaking of it 'hatred' is rhetorically possible and it beats acknowledging truth when you want to hide from it.

What about 'disgusting'? Surely this is hatred? MT Geoff, who works as hard as he can against society's needs for some radical ideological reason, seems to think that the word "icky" is OK. As long as you use a silly word it's OK? Saying 'disgusting' is hatred?

Here is a simple, true fact. Disgust is what protects me, with my strong male libido, from the dangerous activity of jumping into bed with other men. I remember, though, the era when the homosexual lobby tried to suppress mention of the reaction of disgust by claiming that people who did this were trying to suppress their "latent homosexuality". Anyone remember that? That we react, in self defense from disease spreading sodomy, with disgust, which protects us, was latent homosexuality.

That has gone by the wayside. Now it's plain "hatred". The homosexual lobby will not talk about disease at all. It's just "hatred".

AIDS has killed more Americans than World War II did. People like MT Geoff say things like, "AIDS is also caused by sharing needles", which is the logical equivalent of telling someone pointing out that drunk driving kills people that that is not relevant because some deaths in automobile accidents do not involve alcohol.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
HOW DOES IT HARM YOUR MARRIAGE?

Changing the definition of marriage, so that true marriage no longer exists (is not defined) in law would harm society. Apparently the person who asks, "how would this harm your marriage" thinks that my own personal marriage must be affected before defending against the elimination of true marriage.

True marriage, as defined in law, as well as in reality, is, or was before feminists half destroyed it, perfectly designed to achieve a single important end. That end is the rasing of children to be good, productive, citizens who are least likely to depend on society for support as adults or to engage in criminal or other destructive activity. It is not a small matter, as a child who grows up in single parent family is far more likely to be a problem for society. Such a child, for example, is far more likely to vote for socialism in an election (the news reports on finding are just a week or two old, although it should be no surprise to anyone who is not half-witted).

Anything that makes marriage less able to achieve this single essential function is something that would harm society. Anyone who allies himself with a movement that would harm the ability of the institution of marriage to achieve this is someone who has allied himself (or herself) with the enemies of society. No true conservative would involve himself in support of any such movement. Such a movement is for radicals, revolutionaries, and other ne'er-do-wells.

The movement to define true marriage out of existence in the law and replace it with a "marriage" that would allow a man to "marry" a man is such a movement. For anyone who does not bear ill will toward society, it only takes a second or two of consideration to see why. One of the most obvious of harms is that it will give a group of people whose interests are in no way aligned with the needs of children a stake in the penumbra of laws bearing on marriage. Society needs marriage to be a strong bond so that neither parent can easily escape the burden of child rearing. There is no corresponding need for a marriage involving two men to be strong. Why would not two married men want an easy escape from a legal bond between them if it no longer suits them? Married parents may find that their marriage no longer suits them, but that does not change the fact that their children still need it, but in the case of married men, why would not the homosexual lobby which achieved "equality of marriage" not feel that it had an "equal right" to shape marriage to suit married men?

Why would not this lobby, which has demonstrated incredible hostility towards true marriage, its supporters, and the needs of children, not move to further damage marriage wherever there was a conflict between what suits married men and what suits the needs of children? Why would not people like MT Geoff and Bobbcat continue to damn the fulfillment of the real and essential social needs satisfied by marriage, the needs of children, through their typical faint praise of the legitimate ends of marriage? Why would they not continue to use dishonest Marxist rhetoric as they show with the use of phrases like "marriage equality"?

It is a truism that a succesful business with expertise in a specific, well defined, area is harmed when the business expands into some unrelated area. Such would be the case with the elimination of true marriage in law and its replacement with something that no longer focused on the special need that is its true competence, but was forced into satisfying the demands of a vocal, hostile lobby which had nothing in coming with the needs of children.

It is not relevant whether or not the lobby's demanded change would harm my personal marriage. It is relevant that the change would harm the institution of marriage and through that it would harm society and children.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
MARRIAGE "EQUALITY"

I already dealt with "marriage equality", but rhetoricians, such as MT Geoff and bobbcat, do not care about truth and that is because the objective of a rhetorician is to win, not to discover truth. "Marriage equality" is a very useful rhetorical phrase, so we continue to see them utter it despite the fact that it is easy to see, and I have shown it, that marriage equality is, and always has been, already in place. Those who utter "marriage equality" are after something else.

Nobody has been denied marriage on the basis of "gender identity". It is that simple. People who call themselves "homosexuals" and who engage in acts of sodomy have often married a person of the opposite sex, a fact which proves that there is and always has been an equal right under the law to marriage.

This is not some triviality hiding some more fundamental "truth". Only those who do not really believe in truth - post modernists, Marxists, idiots - can fail to understand this.

That some men want to marry men, etc, does not change the fact that these people have exactly the same right to marriage as everyone else.

No, what the utterers of "we seek marriage equality" want is not marriage equality but to change the meaning of marriage.

No true conservative would play around with the word "equality" this way. That people who have an equal right under the law to some thing do not equally value that thing is not a justification that they do not have equality - except, of course, in the rhetoric of Marxists and other radicals, who use the phrase all the time. "If we do not have equality of result, we do not have equality", is a major means of attacking society. That everyone has an equal right to go to the market and make a bid on a yacht is not something that suddenly becomes inequality under the law because many do not have the resources to actually buy a yacht. Under the Marxist rhetoric, "equality of result" or "equality of value", of course, the equality under the law, which we cherish, must be changed. Income must be transferred.

The claim that what is sought after is "marriage equality" is effectively a lie, and it is a rhetorically effective lie. Let no true conservative ever lie this way or ever fall for such a lie.

Of course, when couples are considered, there is not equality under the law. Two men are not able to be married, just as a father cannot marry a daughter, a brother cannot marry a brother, a man cannot marry his dog, etc.

Couples are the smallest type of group. Groups do not have rights, except in postmodern, Marxist, and libertarian minds. So called "group rights" are the antithesis of human rights, the rights of individuals. Individual human rights are often suppressed in the name of some supposed "group right". We have never ending attempts at censorship of individual speech on behalf of some supposed groups right not to be spoken ill of - those who denigrate Islam, for example, are endlessly subjected to attempts to force them to shut up. That individuals who are members of a group do not have human rights via their membership in the group does not mean that they do not have human rights. They have exactly the same human rights as everyone else via their individuality.

Use of the "marriage equality" rhetoric validates every other Marxist inspired, incorrect, use of the word "equality" to advance an attack on our civilization. Any true conservative who has done this should be ashamed of himself. Anyone who continues to use this rhetorical lie is no true conservative but is a person who does not believe in truth.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
This article is from 2012
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
The power of the Devil and the IRS (Government) To my limited understanding, businesses in the U.S.A. are the biggest supporters of churches and other nonprofit groups being limited in some business action by the IRS. If you support a nonprofit group that has to pay a tax, what items would you stop buying from a local business and now buy from your group to cover the tax? Government may or may not gain in tax revenues; it just might be a change in where it comes from?
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
I understand that some churches (in jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal) do perform gay marriages & no one seems to care. However, FORCING ANY house of worship (church, synagogue, mosque, hindu or buddhist temple, etc.) to perform ANY ceremony that is NOT in keeping with their beliefs is a CLEAR violation of the separation of the "church & state". Playing "devil's advocate" here (yes, pun intended)...one could argue that once a house of worship accepts a tax free designation, they have already created an "unholy alliance" (can't help myself with the puns tonight) with the federal government. This will have to be sorted out by greater legal minds than mine. I expect our Founding Fathers never expected the IRS, hence could not have foreseen a "tax exempt status" ever bring created.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Unitarians and United Church of Christ have been performing blessings of same sex unions for some time. Others may as well. I want their right to perform such ceremonies to be protected alongside the rights of others not to do so.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Did you pay your taxes this year? I think you are in more of an "unholy alliance" with the Feds than any church.

(FYI, IRS, yes, I did pay mine too. Never said I wouldn't treat with the Devil - just that I would keep my eyes open...)
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
just wondering what is up with these comments. Reading them a few hours earlier there were a bunch that are no longer here. I submitted one and it is no where to be seen either. Hello PJM IT? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
I noted the same thing, MRG01. I smell censorship until there is an indication that it's something else.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy bobbcat
If PJM hasn't censored me, I doubt they plan to censor anyone. Site has been behaving oddly for several days. (I've been behaving oddly for several years...)
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All