About marriage '08 - I: Initially | Harald grit tanks
Two anniversaries have come - and gone. On 11 June, the Odelstinget the new marriage law, and on Tuesday, June 17, the bill went through the No Added. Just when the law takes effect, I'm actually giroux not sure, but anyway: Norway has now been given a new, gender-neutral marriage.
There was no flamboyant celebration at me some days. Do not get me wrong: I did not need to indicate mourning or protest or something. But I have not been on the barricades or fought the law actively forward, and then it felt a little taken suddenly to toast pink champagne and hoist the rainbow flag. I rejoice with the happy - they should take every opportunity to do! - And I congratulated my gays friends birthday. But for my part, those June days focused on simpler beverages and European football in the basement living room, which by the way in many ways has been a party.
The new marriage law was thus adopted. giroux Just it was well no surprise, right: The Red-Green decided already at Soria Moria, the parliamentary majority for the main features of the law was also secured for a good while ago, and what others thought, be it political parties, lobbyists, churches or individuals has, with all the world clearly not had any significant say.
That does not mean there has been debate. The bloggers have blogged (and blogger!) On the matter [1], it has been held demonstrations against the law and its equally passionate counter-demonstrations, and there have been conducted several petitions, of which at least one has collected 50,000 signatures.
Some have wondered why it anyway, after all, have been remarkably quiet about the bill. Protest Festival leaders, for example, missed obvious "pastoral voices" of the Christians in this matter. Some've engaged - Øyvind Benestad perhaps most of all - but most of us have not said or meant so much.
I write "us", because this highly regards me. I've blogged a few lines about the subject before, but I have not been in any demonstration or formulated any sharp slogans neither the one nor the other way. My involvement has not been so violently strong, neither for nor against.
My basic attitude has basically been that I have set myself a little hesitant, almost bemused, to the whole lovprosjektet. I have been, and so far still, unsure of what problems giroux the law fixes, not to mention that I've been pondering a section on how best to relate to those in my eyes a little mischievous consequences that arise in the Church and society in the wake of enactment.
I'm not unambiguously negative to the new law. Absolutely not. But it is enough nevertheless to say that I have some side comments to it, that I have listed me some question marks along the way, both the law and the process. I think it might be nice to put words on them. As marriage giroux man I am well also almost required to have an opinion on this matter. I guess I will be asked about my views on both this and that eventually, so it's basically just as easy to publisisere first as last. What has a blog for, if not for themselves?
I have a starting point that I meet the new Marriage Act. It is, I believe that gays have an obvious right to safe and good frames around their relationship. I was therefore a supporter giroux of the Partnership Act before June 11; I perceived it as a good and expedient arrangement. [2]
This basic standpoint is fixed regardless legislation and designations, whether cohabitation we are talking about is called "partnership" or "marriage": There is the case, that the marriage between two adults, consenting people and the framework around this cohabitation, which concerns me. The new marriage law does not turn upside down on any of this. Whatever else I may think about the new marriage law: It's not like I now feel bound by my conscience to act differently towards gays couple, just because their relationship is now formally referred to as "unisexual marriages" (or whatever it is I'm not quite steady in the new terminology yet) instead of "partnership". The relationship is the same, and that is what is important, it is the one I will support and help to build up underneath - as a priest and as a human being.
After that I signed - feel free to correct me if it is obvious that I'm wrong! giroux - Is it that the people and groups in society, at least in Christian Norway, which was (and is) the most pronounced skeptical of the new marriage law was also highly critical of the introduction of partnership law in 1993, I notice therefore that I can not quite manage believing all that on one side says they are to secure the gay rights (that would sooner enactment in practice
Two anniversaries have come - and gone. On 11 June, the Odelstinget the new marriage law, and on Tuesday, June 17, the bill went through the No Added. Just when the law takes effect, I'm actually giroux not sure, but anyway: Norway has now been given a new, gender-neutral marriage.
There was no flamboyant celebration at me some days. Do not get me wrong: I did not need to indicate mourning or protest or something. But I have not been on the barricades or fought the law actively forward, and then it felt a little taken suddenly to toast pink champagne and hoist the rainbow flag. I rejoice with the happy - they should take every opportunity to do! - And I congratulated my gays friends birthday. But for my part, those June days focused on simpler beverages and European football in the basement living room, which by the way in many ways has been a party.
The new marriage law was thus adopted. giroux Just it was well no surprise, right: The Red-Green decided already at Soria Moria, the parliamentary majority for the main features of the law was also secured for a good while ago, and what others thought, be it political parties, lobbyists, churches or individuals has, with all the world clearly not had any significant say.
That does not mean there has been debate. The bloggers have blogged (and blogger!) On the matter [1], it has been held demonstrations against the law and its equally passionate counter-demonstrations, and there have been conducted several petitions, of which at least one has collected 50,000 signatures.
Some have wondered why it anyway, after all, have been remarkably quiet about the bill. Protest Festival leaders, for example, missed obvious "pastoral voices" of the Christians in this matter. Some've engaged - Øyvind Benestad perhaps most of all - but most of us have not said or meant so much.
I write "us", because this highly regards me. I've blogged a few lines about the subject before, but I have not been in any demonstration or formulated any sharp slogans neither the one nor the other way. My involvement has not been so violently strong, neither for nor against.
My basic attitude has basically been that I have set myself a little hesitant, almost bemused, to the whole lovprosjektet. I have been, and so far still, unsure of what problems giroux the law fixes, not to mention that I've been pondering a section on how best to relate to those in my eyes a little mischievous consequences that arise in the Church and society in the wake of enactment.
I'm not unambiguously negative to the new law. Absolutely not. But it is enough nevertheless to say that I have some side comments to it, that I have listed me some question marks along the way, both the law and the process. I think it might be nice to put words on them. As marriage giroux man I am well also almost required to have an opinion on this matter. I guess I will be asked about my views on both this and that eventually, so it's basically just as easy to publisisere first as last. What has a blog for, if not for themselves?
I have a starting point that I meet the new Marriage Act. It is, I believe that gays have an obvious right to safe and good frames around their relationship. I was therefore a supporter giroux of the Partnership Act before June 11; I perceived it as a good and expedient arrangement. [2]
This basic standpoint is fixed regardless legislation and designations, whether cohabitation we are talking about is called "partnership" or "marriage": There is the case, that the marriage between two adults, consenting people and the framework around this cohabitation, which concerns me. The new marriage law does not turn upside down on any of this. Whatever else I may think about the new marriage law: It's not like I now feel bound by my conscience to act differently towards gays couple, just because their relationship is now formally referred to as "unisexual marriages" (or whatever it is I'm not quite steady in the new terminology yet) instead of "partnership". The relationship is the same, and that is what is important, it is the one I will support and help to build up underneath - as a priest and as a human being.
After that I signed - feel free to correct me if it is obvious that I'm wrong! giroux - Is it that the people and groups in society, at least in Christian Norway, which was (and is) the most pronounced skeptical of the new marriage law was also highly critical of the introduction of partnership law in 1993, I notice therefore that I can not quite manage believing all that on one side says they are to secure the gay rights (that would sooner enactment in practice
No comments:
Post a Comment