Iceland passes gay marriage law in unanimous vote

[Deuce]

Iceland passes gay marriage law in unanimous vote | Reuters

The Althingi parliament voted 49 to zero to change the wording of marriage legislation to include matrimony between "man and man, woman and woman," in addition to unions between men and women.

Iceland, a socially tolerant island nation of about 320,000 people, became the first country to elect an openly gay head of state in 2009 when Social Democrat Johanna Sigurdardottir became prime minister after being nominated by her party.

"The attitude in Iceland is fairly pragmatic," said Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson, a political scientist at the University of Iceland. "It (gay marriage) has not been a big issue in national politics -- it's not been controversial."

Amazing how an issue can be so divisive in the United States but in Iceland someone said "Hey let's legalize same sex marriage" and their entire legislature said "Hey yeah let's do that."

Iceland's protestant church has yet to decide whether to allow same-sex marriages in church, although the law says "ministers will always be free to perform (gay) marriage ceremonies, but never obliged to."

ATTACK ON ARE RELIGIOUS FREEDO-oh wait.

Why can't America be this tolerant?

edit: Comedy option: The volcano eruption was God preemptively smiting them.

 

[Hoplite]

Rock on

I do wonder why something seemingly so simple elsewhere turns into a bitch-fest ordeal in the US.

 

[Arcana XV]

Rock on

I do wonder why something seemingly so simple elsewhere turns into a bitch-fest ordeal in the US.

I think the difference is that in most Western countries marriage is more a civil matter than a religious one. When you take religious objections out of the debate, there's really not much argument left against gay marriage.

 

[Black Dog]

Iceland passes gay marriage law in unanimous vote | Reuters

Amazing how an issue can be so divisive in the United States but in Iceland someone said "Hey let's legalize same sex marriage" and their entire legislature said "Hey yeah let's do that."

ATTACK ON ARE RELIGIOUS FREEDO-oh wait.

Why can't America be this tolerant?

edit: Comedy option: The volcano eruption was God preemptively smiting them.

Lets see a popualtion of 320,000 compared to a population of 300,000,000+ divided into 50 states.

I don't know, you tell me?

 

[texmaster]

Lets see a popualtion of 320,000 compared to a population of 300,000,000+ divided into 50 states.

I don't know, you tell me?

LOL Great point.

But lets not waste taking a shot at religious people who don't agree with us right Deuce?

How very tolerant of you.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Certainly it is a whole lot easier to get 320,000 people to get behind something than 1000 times that many. However, I would be interested in knowing the religious makeup if Iceland, both denominationally and in intensity. There is little question in the US that these factors DO affect support of lack of support for gay marriage.

 

[roguenuke]

Lets see a popualtion of 320,000 compared to a population of 300,000,000+ divided into 50 states.

I don't know, you tell me?

I'd rather compare a country that has separation of church and state to a country that has a state church.

 

[Black Dog]

I'd rather compare a country that has separation of church and state to a country that has a state church.

Well lets see....

Separation of church and state according to the Constitution and 13th Amendment says the government shall pass no law based on religius law. Nor shall they infringe on the practice thereof.

Well it looks like it really has no bearing as no one is passing a law based on a religious law in the US.

 

[Black Dog]

Certainly it is a whole lot easier to get 320,000 people to get behind something than 1000 times that many. However, I would be interested in knowing the religious makeup if Iceland, both denominationally and in intensity. There is little question in the US that these factors DO affect support of lack of support for gay marriage.

You are correct. I would like to see that myself.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I'd rather compare a country that has separation of church and state to a country that has a state church.

The fact that the country has a state church isn't as important as the make up of that church and the devoutness of the citizens. From what sources I've seen, only 10% of the population attends church at least once per month. Now that may not necessarily reflect the devoutness, but it does give us a clue.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Seems like +80% of the population identifies as a member of the Church of Iceland, a Lutheran denomination. Historically, it seems as if the church went through a period of reformation and liberalism during the early 1900's. That may be reflective of the relatively low church attendance, currently. Interestingly enough, though, 51% of Icelanders self identify as religious. Lots of contradictions in the information that I am finding.

 

[roguenuke]

The fact that the country has a state church isn't as important as the make up of that church and the devoutness of the citizens. From what sources I've seen, only 10% of the population attends church at least once per month. Now that may not necessarily reflect the devoutness, but it does give us a clue.

Oh, I agree. I did see that too. But I still found it interesting.

 

[Hoplite]

Icelanders tend to have a very "at home" approach to religion; it belongs in church, at home, and in your heart but that's it. They dont really feel the need to project their religious beliefs into the public sphere the way Americans tend to.

 

[Kandahar]

Iceland elects a lesbian and then BAM, their economy implodes. Coincidence? I think not. :lol:

 

[roguenuke]

Well lets see....

Separation of church and state according to the Constitution and 13th Amendment says the government shall pass no law based on religius law. Nor shall they infringe on the practice thereof.

Well it looks like it really has no bearing as no one is passing a law based on a religious law in the US.

Restricting marriage because of an almost entirely religious based objection to it seems like the US is passing laws based on religion to me.

 

[Arcana XV]

Icelanders tend to have a very "at home" approach to religion; it belongs in church, at home, and in your heart but that's it. They dont really feel the need to project their religious beliefs into the public sphere the way Americans tend to.

That's pretty much the way it is in most of Europe. One of the reasons why Spain also allowed gay marriage despite being a strongly Catholic country.

 

[Black Dog]

Restricting marriage because of an almost entirely religious based objection to it seems like the US is passing laws based on religion to me.

The way it seems and the reality are 2 different things.

Separation of church and state does not mean the wiping of religion from public life.

 

[roguenuke]

The way it seems and the reality are 2 different things.

Separation of church and state does not mean the wiping of religion from public life.

True, but when you restrict government endorsed relationships because of religious objections, then you are allowing religion to be involved in something that it really shouldn't have a say in. Religion does not own civil marriage. If we allow people to use religion as a viable argument to restrictions on what types of relationships the government will endorse, then we go back to where, theoretically, will such restrictions end. I am certain that there are plenty of religions out there that would like there own restrictions placed on civil marriages. If those people have a majority to get such restrictions approved, then what keeps them from being right to do so?

 

[Black Dog]

True, but when you restrict government endorsed relationships because of religious objections, then you are allowing religion to be involved in something that it really shouldn't have a say in.

No. You are allowing people to be free to think and vote etc in a free society.

Religion does not own civil marriage. If we allow people to use religion as a viable argument to restrictions on what types of relationships the government will endorse, then we go back to where, theoretically, will such restrictions end.

They will end wherever the people want them to end. Unfortunately our government and laws have moved closer to a direct democracy rather than a representative republic in my opinion. This is the true root of the problem.

If this were truly about religion, it would already be decided. It is not, it is about discrimination and those being discriminated against not willing to accept small victory's as attitudes change. Slow and steady will win the race, not rushing in and challenging peoples age old traditions. All this does is make people even more resistant.

I am certain that there are plenty of religions out there that would like there own restrictions placed on civil marriages. If those people have a majority to get such restrictions approved, then what keeps them from being right to do so?

As I said this is not about religion.

 

[roguenuke]

No. You are allowing people to be free to think and vote etc in a free society.



They will end wherever the people want them to end. Unfortunately our government and laws have moved closer to a direct democracy rather than a representative republic in my opinion. This is the true root of the problem.

If this were truly about religion, it would already be decided. It is not, it is about discrimination and those being discriminated against not willing to accept small victory's as attitudes change. Slow and steady will win the race, not rushing in and challenging peoples age old traditions. All this does is make people even more resistant.



As I said this is not about religion.

No, the SCOTUS has already ruled once before that caused a huge change in marriage laws, that were supported by the majority of people, because those laws were viewed as discriminatory. It is very likely that this will be dealt with the same way within the next 10 years, if not sooner.

 

[Black Dog]

No, the SCOTUS has already ruled once before that caused a huge change in marriage laws, that were supported by the majority of people, because those laws were viewed as discriminatory. It is very likely that this will be dealt with the same way within the next 10 years, if not sooner.

That was about race, not a sexual preference.

The challenges and defeats in CA (a very liberal state) should clue you in on how this is going. In this case their is no clear cut majority for gay marriage. On top of that 23 states have already amended the state constitutions to define marriage as one man and one woman. more states are moving quickly to do the same or are out right banning it.

The evidence does not support your opinion.

 

[Deuce]

That was about race, not a sexual preference.

The challenges and defeats in CA (a very liberal state) should clue you in on how this is going. In this case their is no clear cut majority for gay marriage. On top of that 23 states have already amended the state constitutions to define marriage as one man and one woman. more states are moving quickly to do the same or are out right banning it.

The evidence does not support your opinion.

It's not the same situation but it is a similar one, and the support for same-sex marriage is steadily growing. In fact, there's an almost directly linear correlation between age and support. Old people hate the idea by a huge margin, young people are about dead even now. As the older generations start to die off, you'll see a clear majority in favor of same-sex marriage I bet. So yes, he's right in a manner of speaking. There's no majority now but I expect there will be in the near future.

It seems clear to me that religion is the only reason this hasn't been done already. Like one of the first responders said, once you take religion out of the equation there aren't really any arguments against same-sex marriage.

 

[Singularity]

That was about race, not a sexual preference.

The challenges and defeats in CA (a very liberal state) should clue you in on how this is going. In this case their is no clear cut majority for gay marriage. On top of that 23 states have already amended the state constitutions to define marriage as one man and one woman. more states are moving quickly to do the same or are out right banning it.

The evidence does not support your opinion.

Actually it does. Currently, the majority of Americans are against gay marriage, but the trend shows a definitive acceptance, which will eventually lead to legalization. This is especially true amongst the younger voters (18-30) from older polls (Americans' Acceptance of Gay Relations Crosses 50% Threshold).

Those in favor of gay marriage simply have to wait. Eventually all DOMA laws will struck down, given the general drift towards acceptance.

 

[1069]

That was about race, not a sexual preference.

Discrimination against homosexuals is not about "sexual preference".
It's about sexual orientation, which is as innate as race.

One might as well say Jim Crow Laws were about "pigmentation preference", and therefore the discrimination was legitimate.

:roll:

 

[Civil1z@tion]

Well good. That makes 9 countries that recognize full homosexual marriage along with 5 US states, the District of Columbia and Mexico City, and 18 countries, 9 US states, 4 Australian states, 4 Argentinian states, and one state from Mexico and Venezuela each that allow civil unions (basically marriage minus the name). Gradually, the idea is advancing is the world hasn't imploded or been struck down by god. Hell, two US states and the District of Columbia have even passed gay marriage legislatively signaling that this is moving beyond the courts even in the US. Hundreds of millions of people either have the right to fully marry a person of the same sex or to effectively do so without the name. And yet there have been no demonstrable negative effects from this (even religious liberty is safe as pastors who disapprove of the practice aren't forced to perform ceremonies, its not like they were forced to perform ceremonies on say, atheist couples if they found that against their beliefs so why would they be forced to marry gays?). So good for Iceland and hopefully more places (especially US states) will be rapidly joining the club.