German Chancellor Angela Merkel Comes Out Against Gay Marriage

German Chancellor Angela Merkel Comes Out Against Gay Marriage July 15, 2015
Photo Source: Flickr Creative Commons by Duncan Hull https://www.flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/
Photo Source: Flickr Creative Commons by Duncan Hull https://www.flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/

Just when I thought that there were no independent thinking heads of states left in the Western world, here comes German Chancellor Angela Merkel, swimming alone and against the tide.

Her common-sense approach is to end unjust discrimination against homosexuals, but to maintain marriage as between one man and one woman. She favors allowing homosexuals to register as domestic partners.

This takes guts folks. Real guts. It’s the mark of a statesman to think for yourself and not play follow the leader.

From The Independent:

Angela Merkel has come out against gay marriage, saying that she agrees with civil partnerships but believes matrimony is just for men and women.

The German Chancellor backed equal benefits for same-sex couples, such as tax breaks, and said discrimination should be ‘eliminated’.

But the committed Christian, who has been married twice, gave her personal definition of marriage as ‘a man and a woman living together’, in a YouTube interview with Florian Mundt, a YouTube known under the alias LeFloid who has a significant online following.

“I’m someone who is very supportive of us eliminating all discrimination … ”

… Ms Merkel went on to say stress that marriage should be strictly defined as between a man and a woman, adding: “I am for registered civil partnerships. I am for our not having any discrimination in tax legislation. And wherever we still find discrimination, we will continue to dismantle it,” according to German broadcaster Deutsche Welle.

Explaining further, the German leader said: “I don’t want discrimination and [I want] equality, but I make a difference at some point.”

"I didn't state that very well, sorry. Nothing wrong with the link, I just couldn't ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"You don't remember Lyndon Johnson doing any such thing because he didn't do any such ..."

Dr Christine Ford in Hiding Because ..."
"I haven't had the opportunity to read the FBI investigation. I'm not in the habit ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"Was there something wrong with the link?"

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."

Browse Our Archives

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

39 responses to “German Chancellor Angela Merkel Comes Out Against Gay Marriage”

  1. This woman is smarter than any of those in the courts that decided to appease same sex marriage homos instead of We the People! There was no reason why these homos could not get the benefits they want without getting married. The same effort the government is putting in to punish those that ban same sex marriage is the same effort they could have put in to grant these homos the benefits they want while living together! The USA leaders are a bunch of stupid fucks. I am sick of the liberals! They have no common sense. They are backwards and evil. They are destroying the USA.

    • Lucilla, I don’t think you mean it this way, especially since it’s been used so frequently by gay people themselves, but the term “homo” can be thought of as a put-down. Probably better to use another word.

  2. She has become my favorite world leader! If I knew German I might actually immigrate. Or better yet, let’s change the US election laws and have her join our presidential race!

  3. Angela Merkel is basically saying “Let’s grant same-sex couples every single legal benefit of marriage, except the right to use the word ‘marriage’ to describe their relationship.”

    In what world is that not an example of hypocrisy?

    • Ask gays. That’s what they wanted and fought all the way to the SCOTUS for. For the word marriage which would convey acceptance and equality with heterosexuality. They could have had their civil unions 10 years ago but that wasn’t the goal. Now we are going to have not just ss unions but every flavor of marriage you can think up between consenting adults.

      • Calling a homosexual relationship by something it is not, regardless of legality, does not make that relationship equivalent to heterosexual marriage or the decision to say it is, sound and reasonable. The logic is not there. ‘Equality’ has been the buzzword, but the true issue of the lack of equivalency should have been brought to the fore. Some things are simply not equal in function and purpose, because their very essence is not equivalent to what it wants to pretend it is. Insisting something is what it is not, is delusional. But delusion and its subsequent manipulation of group-think has won, for the misguided proponents of ‘equality’ and into the highest reaches of government. A lie has been legalized. It may stand for a long while, but it sits on shifting sand, not bedrock.

        • LM, my wife and I have a son, born from regular old intercourse. We also have a daughter who was born in China to Chinese people and we legally adopted her in NY.

          Based upon your comment, I’m curious to know if you then also believe that – to quote you – “a lie has been legalized” in our adoption laws, since the law regards my 2 children as equivalent in all legal respects.

          Your logic dictates that we should not apply words like “equality” and “equivalent” and “equal” – and the attendant legal concepts – to my daughter, vis-a-vis my son.

          LMK

          • Nonsense. The union of a man and a woman is the naturally evolved way of exchanging DNA to preserve the human species. It has NOTHING to do with how natural or adopted children are regarded. Both your children are the product of the combination of male and female chromosomes. That is impossible to do with same sex chromosomes, unless unethical manipulation were to be applied to transform human DNA. So, yes, a major lie has been legalized, because marriage is the union of a woman and a man, to first produce offspring by exchange of genetic material, and next to raise those offspring in a nurturing environment that has both male and female components. The fact that this does not always happens is obviously an exception, not the norm. The point of legalizing same sex “marriage” was to normalize a most unnatural exception: same sex couples cannot reproduce naturally, and the environment in which they raise children is definitely not the ideal for human beings.

    • exactly, since the REASONS for benefits being given to marriage were because of the benefits that marriage provides to the society (i.e. the next generation.)

    • Well, one thing to consider is that the “Wall of Separation” is not as pronounced in Germany as in the United States. This is particularly highlighted by the German “Church Tax”, where the state collects the Kirchensteuer from taxpayers to distribute to the recognized churches. In a state where there is less distinction than the United States between ecclesiastical and civil matters, a corresponding intermingling of ecclesiastical and civil senses of marriage becomes unsurprising.

      • Germany requires a civil marriage at the registry office. That is the only civilly recognized marriage. What you do in church is up to you.
        I see no hypocrisy.

    • Is it hypocrisy to call something by its correct and accurate name? ‘Marriage’ is a noun which describes only one kind of relationship and its purpose. Would you look at other concepts, ideas, or objects, and insist they be redefined for everyone just because you say so, against the foundational good of a society?

  4. As I see it, she is basically advocating a distinction without a difference. That even this very ambiguous position stands out as brave and independent demonstrates only just how screwy the western world has become.

    • To gay advocates, it’s all the difference. “Marriage” says gay is just like straight. Civil unions doesn’t say that.

      • Gay is of course, not like straight, in any way. This was never an ‘equality’ issue, but one of lack of equivalency.

  5. Sadly, given what we know about the German Bishops Conference, Merkel’s probably more Catholic on this issue than her own Bishop.

        • Even the Devil can speak true and good things and Merkel IS a devil. She is the dictator of Europe and as a European I can see that, she’s not unlike Hitler himself. No country in the European Union can take a decision without her approval. If she were “more Catholic than the local Catholic Bishop” she would say that homosexual partnerships should have no recognition at all because they’re intrinsically disordered and sinful. But she doesn’t. She speaks like the Devil in front of Adam and Eve, saying half truths to bring people towards sin and evil.

      • A small correction. In Germany, “Evangelisch” means “Lutheran”. Merkel is not an “Evangelical” in the American sense, but a member of the official Lutheran Church (which is even worse than the German Catholic Church and can be easily compared to the worst of the American Episcopal Church – which makes her own stand even more remarkable). She is actually the daughter of a Lutheran clergyman.

  6. Civil unions were considered in the US until they were seen as a form of “separate but equal” segregation.

    • And the obvious answer to that question is that Government should get out of the marriage business and ONLY issue civil unions, to whomever wants them, for any reason, without discrimination on age, consent, chromosomes of the partners, or number of partners.

  7. Does she explain her reasoning? I don’t see it in the quoted text. I see THAT she believes civil marriage in her country should be limited to straight couples, but does she say WHY she holds that view? It would be interesting to know.

  8. The fact is that civil union has been in German law for a decade. In her position, she cannot say that she opposes civil unions, or event aht she is neutral on them, without seeming to call for their abolition; which would be a nightmare. That is why she has not made her reasoning very clear. I imagine that her actual view is that she can put up with civil unions, but that marriage is a step too far. That is, I think she may believe that civil unions are a concession, not a right, and the furthest she is prepared to accept.

    A couple of points about Frau Merkel. (Who is not the “head of state” of Germany, Rebecca, but the Prime Minister. The President of Germany is currently a PC nonentity who leaves me with the impression that gay marriage would be quite OK with him.) She is a scientist, the real thing, with several published research papers to her name; and she grew up under the tyranny of the German Democratic Republic. I long wondered how that had affected her personally, and I got my answer when she exploded with fury, far beyond any political necessity, on finding out that the USA had been spying on her portable phone. According to her friends, this had brought back ugly memories of Stasi surveillance.

    However you put it, this is a brave act. Frau Merkel, in my view, has been growing in stature and leadership for years. She has managed the Greek crisis with a cool head and a firm hand, and is still in control, having tamed both her parliament and the Greeks themselves. She is, to us an old-fashioned expression, the only man in Europe, and thank God she is there.

    • Most likely an attempt by Merkel to sail the prevailing winds of opinion while taking a “neutral” approach, explaining the support for civil unions. A national executive with the vision of a bat.

  9. Wow, I am surprised as after the Irish referendum I figured somewhere in Europe is next turns out totally wrong it was USA. I was concerned for Germany immediately but it seems my views of Frau Merkel were wrong. What a brave and decent woman, where have they all gone. Live long and well Frau Merkel, God bless you,

  10. Rebecca, not on topic, but I thought you might find this article interesting if you get a chance.
    Hope your homecoming is good, everything is organized and kitchen and laundry aren’t a mess.

  11. I think Rebecca made the point that the SCOTUS decision would, like Roe v. Wade, not settle the issue, but likely ignite it further. I was just looking at a thread on ssm with almost 7500 comments, and still going strong. I’m afraid we are in for a long and bumpy ride

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.