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."
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."
Rock on
I do wonder why something seemingly so simple elsewhere turns into a bitch-fest ordeal in the US.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
That was about race, not a sexual preference.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?