Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post
By Joshua Goldberg
Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Jun. 04 2008 07:18 PM ET
Heated controversy erupted in Greece Tuesday after the mayor of Tilos, a small island in the Aegean sea, stood over the nation’s first gay “marriage” ceremony. In total, 30 couples were wed.
Response from government officials throughout Greece – a conservative, Christian Orthodox nation – was furious and prompt. Officials said gay “marriage” was illegal under the law, and were investigating a prosecution case against the mayor for “breach of conduct.”
"There is no legal framework for the holding of same-sex weddings in Greece," Greek Justice Minister Sotiris Hatzigakis explained in a statement.
Mayor Anastassis Aliferis, a self described socialist, however, said that he would block any attempts to see the marriages annulled.
"I have no intention of annulling the marriages," he told Agence France-Presse.
Aliferis has sided with gay rights groups in claiming that the country’s constitution does not specify that marriage is “between a man or woman.”
"Under European law, there can be no discrimination, and I hope the authorities keep that in mind to avoid ridiculing our country," he said.
According to a poll conducted in April by Ethnos daily, a plurality of Greeks surveyed said they were opposed to gay “marriage.” Over 48 percent said they “oppose the legalization of same-sex relations.”
Also, the Greek Orthodox Church also officially frowns upon homosexuality. In a 2004 statement, the late head Archbishop Christodoulos called homosexuality a “defect.”
Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
4 comments:
Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com
Charlotte, all Americans already have the basic civil right to marry. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Marriage is for a man and a woman; it takes a man and a woman to comprise a marriage.
You can put two axe heads together or two axe handles together, but you won't get an axe until you put an axe head with an axe handle. A chassis without an engine isn't a car, and an engine without a chassis isn't a car; it only becomes a car when you put the requisite parts together. How functional would the plumbing in a house be if you used parts with all male ends or all female ends? It just doesn't get the job done, and can't be called "plumbing." You wouldn't pay a plumber for putting together a mess like that, would you?
Two homosexual can never comprise a marriage, no matter what inappropriate label someone may want to slap on it.
We shouldn't undermine marriage by slapping that label on relationships that don't meet the inherent criteria. Like creating a fake $20 bill devalues legitimate currency, calling a relationship a "marriage" when it can never be one devalues the real thing.
Well said, Mr. Ellis. What Charlotte and others that agree with her really want is SPECIAL super-constitutional considerations and privileges for homosexuals that are not granted to others.
If homosexuals want to form long-term monogamous relationships, that's fine, but don't call it marriage. If I like to collect and dress up in women’s clothes, that is my right, but it would correctly be called a perversion, not high fashion!
Allow me to disagree with a couple of points in the article.
First of all, Greece is not at all a conservative country.
Second, it is a "christian orthodox" nation only in the sence that the religion is not (yet) separated from the state. In no part of the everyday life, however, church or religion plays a dominant role.
The marriage was well received by the people and the media.
The comment of the late head Archbishop does not depict -anymore- the official standpoint of the greek church, since the current head has declared that "it is at people's right the disposal of themselves, but their actions might lead them away from the will of God". This is a quite progressive attitude, to my opinion. Why did the article choose to diffuse the statement of the ex-head who is also dead?
Let me also clear that, indeed the constitution does not explicitly prohibit the marriage between persons of the same sex.
At last, I don't understand why the article refers to Mr. Aliferis as a "self described socialist". This is an unacceptable comment.
Post a Comment