As Denmark requires its churches to perform same-sex marriages, it offers a preview of loss of religious liberty to come. In 2012, Denmark’s parliament legislated a law that required all churches to perform same-sex marriages. When the law passed, “Denmark’s church minister, Manu Sareen, called the vote ‘historic,’” reported The Telegraph. The threat to religious freedom presented by the redefinition of marriage has become a reality.
The law carried a large majority with 85 of 111 Members of Parliament in favor. Popular support is strong as well; there is only a “minority among Danish people, politicians and priests who are against” it, according to Sareen, who pushed for the law. However, “Karsten Nissen, the Bishop of the Church of Denmark in Viborg, who is refusing to carry out the ceremonies, has warned that the new law risks ‘splitting the church’.”
The implications of a government forcing a church or religion to perform something to which it objects are grave indeed. First, though, some important differences between Denmark and the United States should be noted.
Copenhagen, Denmark
American ears are accustomed to the phrase “separation of church and state” (which actually appears in Thomas Jefferson’s letters), and we know that freedom of religion is enshrined in the first amendment of the Constitution. In Denmark, however, there is a national church: The Church of Denmark. Denominationally, it is Evangelical Lutheran. There is, then, no separation of church and state. In such a case, there would be no legal reason why the government could not impose such a statute. It is yet unclear how the new law would apply to other churches, such as the Catholic Church in Denmark.
The Telegraph notes, however, that the gay marriage ceremony is now mandatory for “all churches”. Presumably, the government will seek to use coercion against any church that defies its mandate. This would make orthodox Catholicism de facto illegal, which would set a harrowing precedent for faith and religious freedom in the West.
Significantly, Denmark is characterized by “homogenous secularity”, according to its own website. They recognize the contribution Christianity made to their culture and nation-state, but at the same time are honest about the decline of the Church’s role in public life and the general lack of interest in matters of faith. Given this, it is unsurprising that they have little problem abridging religious freedom, which was once a hallowed right.
To soften the law somewhat, there is an exemption for priests who object, but it is circular. An individual priest may refuse to perform a same-sex wedding, but the local bishop must then arrange for a replacement. Individual protection is meaningless when the church as a whole is forced to comply; at some point, an individual must comply. Of course, there is no exemption for bishops who object, so the exemption is rather empty.
While Denmark’s action is not a direct analogy to the United States or even the rest of Europe, it is a shocking step forward in hostility towards religion in the developed West.
There is every reason to suspect that similar laws will eventually come down on the rest of the continent and here on our side of the Atlantic. Gay marriage advocates have long assured religious voices that churches would never be forced to officiate at such events. But the proceedings of the legalization of same-sex marriage so far have afforded no meaningful freedom of religion in practice.
Catholic Charities are no longer permitted to provide adoption services in Massachusetts, Illinois and Washington D.C., because they would only consider homes with a mother and father as suitable adoption candidates. Christian bakers and photographers have been sued for refusing to provide their services at same-sex weddings and they are losing the court cases.
And in the contraception mandate included in the Affordable Care Act, religious institutions are defined to include only churches themselves. Faith-affiliated organizations such as hospitals and colleges are not included; neither are business owners who practice their religion. As stated above regarding the priest’s exemption in the Danish law, an exemption that does not protect all dissenting individuals is empty because then there will be some people who do object to certain issues, such as contraception or gay marriage, and are forced to perform or pay for them nonetheless. Protecting some but not all conscientious objectors makes for a hollow protection.
Based on these developments, people of faith are losing ground in the public sphere at an alarming rate. Freedom of religion in America was meant to protect the churches from precisely this type of government intervention—from attempting to force them to change their teachings or practices for political reasons. Today sadly, freedom of religion is typically twisted into an antagonistic “freedom from religion”.
The forced acceptance of gay marriage spells trouble for true religious liberty. The typical line is that people can believe what they want as long as they keep “exclusionary beliefs” to themselves. Michelle Bauman of the Catholic News Agency quoted Colorado senator Pat Steadman and his “message for those who object to recognizing ‘gay marriages’ on religious grounds: ‘get thee to a nunnery. Live there then. Go live a monastic life, away from modern society.’“
The idea that someone can believe something as long as he or she does not act on this belief publically is essentially forbidding the belief. It means that only our thoughts can be free while our actions must conform. But since human action expresses human belief and individuality, policing actions is tantamount to policing thought.
“Like” Truth and Charity Forum on Facebook!
At the point where Christian beliefs are not permitted to those running businesses and living in society, religious freedom is lost. Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, remarked to a gathering of priests in 2010 that:
“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”
If we cannot learn to express the truth about human sexuality and marriage compellingly, we are on the road to martyrdom; the state will only grow more hostile. We must express the beauty of marital love, its intrinsic connection to the begetting of children and the reality that follows from that: that only the union of a man and woman constitutes marriage.
Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to correct when the Danish law was passed. We regret the error.
Stephanie Pacheco is a writer, blogger, and speaker in Northern Virginia. She earned a M.A. in Theological Studies, summa cum laude, from Christendom College and holds a B.A. from the University of Virginia in Religious Studies with a minor in Government and Political Theory. She has presented at a conference of the American Catholic Historical Association and for Christian Women in Action. She lives with her husband and two young children.
