A new marriage law was just passed, 84 to 41 votes in the Storting. It explicitly permits people of the same sex to marry. The previous arrangement of 'partnerskap' is repealed; people who have registered as partners may have this re-registered as a marriage. Married couples of the same sex are to be considered for adoption, and for assisted conception, with the same weight as heterosexual spouses. (That is, the state medical insurance will pay for assisted conception for married couples of whatever gender combination; of course anyone is free to go to a private hospital.)
Churches, including the state church, are to have the right but not the duty to perform such marriages - in the case of the state church, this presumably means it's up either to the bishops or the local minister, I'm not sure which. The Christian Democrats have been fighting a stubborn rearguard action against this, so presumably this compromise is a concession to them; you would otherwise expect the state church to have the duty to marry anyone who can get married. Otherwise what do we have a state church for, anyway? With any luck this will give some additional impetus to the movement to get rid of that medieval relic.
Edit: Interesting - today is also the 95th anniversary of universal suffrage (that is, including women) in Norway. Bit of intentional symbolism there, I think.
[ June 11, 2008, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And, in related news (that is, related by "I found this by random Wiki-clicking), today is known as "the Devil's birthday" in Norway and Denmark, the cause being an ancient law from 1656 stating that loan payments had to be made by June 11th or be considered overdue. Thus, if you go fishing today, you won't get anything edible; or so legend has it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Norwegians eat lutefisk.....so why would they care whether what they catch is edible?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, you can't make lutefisk out of just anything, you know. It has to be a tough sort of fish that doesn't give up and dissolve, or you'll be eating raw lye.
(Sings offkey) Luuuuuutefisken lengter hjem til haaaavet... for haaaaavet... det er luuuutefiskens hjeeeeem...
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Do we have an agreement with Norway to recognize their marriages and other contracts here in the US?
If so, would that supersede the "Defense of Marriage Act?"
If so, could Adam and Steve go to Norway, get married and have a wonderful honeymoon, then come back home and be listed as "Married filing jointly" on their US taxes?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I suspect that at least one of them would have to be a Norwegian citizen for them to get legally married in Norway. (I'm not certain about this.)
As for the US having to recognise such marriages, cursed if I know. It would probably depend on the judge in the first test case, and eventually go to the Supreme Court.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
So, now we can sit back and watch the decline of civilization? Any riots and whoring in the streets yet? Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Let's not forget the drugs. And the children! Won't someone please think of the children?!
-pH
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Heh. As it happens, one of the editorials I was just reading used that exact, literal phrase, "tenk på barna" - "think of the children".
It's pretty hard to start a riot among a population of phlegmatic Norwegians, but whoring on the streets, we do have. The police clear them off Karl Johan (the main shopping street of Oslo, leading up to the Palace past the Storting) every so often, which is probably not entirely legal since prostitution is not against the law. There is talk of a ban on buying sex, on the Swedish model. No gay prostitutes, though, to the best of my knowledges - they're women imported from Nigeria, mostly.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
When you talk about "importing women" and "whores" in the same sentence, it starts to sound an awful lot like sex slavery.
I suspect human trafficking is illegal in Norway even if prostitution is not.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh yes, of course. Most of these women are here against their will, or at any rate are not prostitutes of their own will - it's the usual scam of telling someone they'll have a good job as au pair or model or whatever, then beating them if they refuse to turn tricks. Which is illegal, but difficult to prove or prosecute when the victim speaks no English, much less Norwegian, and has no idea where to go for help. We've already got perfectly good laws against trafficking, rape and assault, though, so I don't see where driving the trade underground where the police have greater difficulty tracking it is going to do any good.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm guessing that Nigerian prostitutes can make a better living in Norway than in Nigeria. Think of them as migrant labor. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, if they got to keep the money they would presumably be a lot better off, yes. As it is, 'slave labour' is probably closer.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Norway hasn't done this already? I'm surprised. They're the most liberal nation on the planet, 'cept for Sweden, without being Communist.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
There was a civil union law passed fifteen years ago. Separate but equal, sorta. But then again, homosexual acts were only decriminalised forty years ago. That's pretty quick work, I'd say.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
What would Hagar and his viking brethren say?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
"Bend over"?
Posted by bootjes (Member # 11624) on :
In the Netherlands we have such a law since 2000. We have had between 1000 and 2000 gay weddings a year.
My church was the first to mary a gay couple.(I am remonstrant, dont know if there is an english version of this church, it is a group cast out of the protestant church during the 80 year war with spain 1610, because of their protest against predestination)
In 2007 a civil servant was fired because he refused to marry a gay couple. This was quite an argument for a while. The outcome is that there is a law that says that each community has to have enough civil servants to marry a gay couple. If that is the case, an individual civil servant can refrain from marrying a gay couple.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)