'All priests should wed same-sex couples': Swedish PM

[Daneman]

No priest working for the Church of Sweden should be allowed to refuse to wed same-sex couples, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven said in an interview with a church newspaper.
Interviewed by the Church of Sweden's newspaper Kyrkans Tidning, the Social Democrat prime minister compared priests who refuse to wed same-sex couples with midwives refusing to carry out abortions.

"Us Social Democrats work to ensure that all priests should wed all people, including same-sex couples. If you are a midwife you either have to carry out abortions, or you have to find another profession. The same goes for priests who do not want to wed homosexuals," Löfven told the paper.

Same-sex couples in Sweden have been legally entitled to wed in church since May 2009, although individual priests can choose whether or not they want to perform such services. Church of Sweden priests also have the right to decline to any other services, including baptisms, funerals and weddings.

The Church has, however, taken an active stance on gay weddings that goes further than the legislation, and actively endorses same-sex marriage.

Löfven, who is not religious himself, backs bills that have been submitted to the Church of Sweden's decision-making body, Kyrkomötet, about making willingness to wed same-sex couple a prerequisite for ordination.

"I can understand that people can have difficulties getting to terms with this for faith reasons, but as an open democratic church, the church is an organisation that stands for equal rights of all people. People who love each other, regardless of their sex, should have the same right to marriage," Löfven said.

https://www.thelocal.se/20170623/all...les-swedish-pm

What a shame that there are priests who still refuse to do that. In Sweden of all countries! In 2017! WTF!

[Acidbaron]

The real question here is why would you still want to marry in a Church, regardless of your sexual orientation. This ain't the 1900's anymore.

[Daneman]

The real question here is why would you still want to marry in a Church, regardless of your sexual orientation. This ain't the 1900's anymore.

Because it's tradition.

[Zoranon]

Why do I bet that when same sex marriage was first established, it was accompanied by assurances that priests that do not want to wed same sex couples would not be forced to?

It disturbs me to see a slippery slope as a real thing as opposed to a fallacy.

[Daneman]

Why do I bet that when same sex marriage was first established, it was accompanied by assurances that priests that do not want to wed same sex couples would not be forced to?

It disturbs me to see a slippery slope as a real thing as opposed to a fallacy.

Are you homophobic by any chance? Why would you refuse to wed people?

[Azadina]

If the churches are paid by taxes in any form, yes, that service should be available to all.

[Deleted]

Agree if this goes for ALL faiths but to target just one is wrong.

[zealo]

The real question here is why would you still want to marry in a Church, regardless of your sexual orientation. This ain't the 1900's anymore.

Tradition, mostly. Sweden is secular to the point of regular church attendance among the population being below 5%.

[Orange Joe]

Why do I bet that when same sex marriage was first established, it was accompanied by assurances that priests that do not want to wed same sex couples would not be forced to?

It disturbs me to see a slippery slope as a real thing as opposed to a fallacy.

Makes up argument, Then uses said argument as proof of slippery slope...

[Zoranon]

Are you homophobic by any chance? Why would you refuse to wed people?

Try to calm down breathe and read my post once again SLOWLY. Then try to come with a more intelligent response. And i dont care who you sleep with.

[Acidbaron]

Because it's tradition.

It also used to be a tradition that the person in charge of an area had first rights to your wife right after marriage. There are plenty of traditions regarding marriage, many of them died out and many more will continue to die out.

[Zoranon]

It also used to be a tradition that the person in charge of an area had first rights to your wife right after marriage. There are plenty of traditions regarding marriage, many of them died out and many more will continue to die out.

No it was not. Primo noctis is a made up tale from early modern era. Droit du seigneur is one of the silly myths that refuse to die.

[Deleted]

Agree if this goes for ALL faiths but to target just one is wrong.

Do you think they'll even suggest that muslims would be forced to marry gay couples? Oh god, you're killing me.

The swedes shit their pants at the thought of offending them.

[xmx]

It also used to be a tradition that the person in charge of an area had first rights to your wife right after marriage. There are plenty of traditions regarding marriage, many of them died out and many more will continue to die out.

Like you said, traditions die out. This one happens to not have died yet, thats it.

[zealo]

It also used to be a tradition that the person in charge of an area had first rights to your wife right after marriage. There are plenty of traditions regarding marriage, many of them died out and many more will continue to die out.

There is no evidence of that "right" actually being used in medieval Europe. There are references to it, but they're all much later in origin.

[Rend Blackhand]

People want the church to be out of the state but are fine with the state being very much inside the church.

No religious group should be forced to do this if they disagree.

[durrtygoodz]

Are you homophobic by any chance? Why would you refuse to wed people?

Church and state should be seperated. I'm not religious whatsoever but I still hold that view.

[xmx]

They shouldnt be forced to marry anyone, homossexual or straight couples if it hurts their faith. If a priest doesnt want to marry you just find another priest, its just like a waiter that refuses to serve someone, its their right.

[dd614]

Thank God in America you aren't forced by the state to follow religious practices you don't agree with.

[Grummgug]

The democrats warn us its bad for religion and politics to mix. They point out all the bad things that happened in the middle ages when the church and state mixed. But I'm sure they have absolutely no problem with the church and state mixing when its the PM issuing orders to a state religion somewhere when its something they like. And that's their lack of vision, because the worm always turns, and eventually the church / state entity will start doing things they don't like again.