The title is a little misleadingly worded: This concerns the branch of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, which was carried over during the colonial period, and which is actively split...
The title is a little misleadingly worded:
This concerns the branch of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, which was carried over during the colonial period, and which is actively split into several sister branches, the article does not source or specify whether this news concerns all branches, several, or just one. This decision has no bearing on LGBTQ+ rights in the Netherlands.
It doesn't seem like they "forced" as much as the decision to not allow same-sex marriage has been annulled by the court, on the request of church members themselves.
Only some church members requested this change: "A key figure in the Dutch Reformed Church, Reverend Laurie Gaum, along with his father Dr Frits Gaum and eight other members". That's only 10...
on the request of church members themselves.
Only some church members requested this change: "A key figure in the Dutch Reformed Church, Reverend Laurie Gaum, along with his father Dr Frits Gaum and eight other members". That's only 10 people, rather than a representative majority of church members. Reverend Gaum is gay, so he had a vested interest in campaigning for this change. The church itself "maintained these unions did not meet 'Christian guidelines'" (as stated in this article) and "has insisted that as a religious institution it is protected by religious freedom and has the right to make its own rules and follow its own doctrine". Given that Reverend Gaum and his fellow activists had to take this matter to the High Court, it seems the church was unwilling to change of its own accord. It had to be forced to change.
Because this PinkNews article is reporting the current news about the High Court's ruling, whereas the other article I linked in my comment is 6 months old, and doesn't include that current news.
Because this PinkNews article is reporting the current news about the High Court's ruling, whereas the other article I linked in my comment is 6 months old, and doesn't include that current news.
The title is a little misleadingly worded:
This concerns the branch of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, which was carried over during the colonial period, and which is actively split into several sister branches, the article does not source or specify whether this news concerns all branches, several, or just one. This decision has no bearing on LGBTQ+ rights in the Netherlands.
It doesn't seem like they "forced" as much as the decision to not allow same-sex marriage has been annulled by the court, on the request of church members themselves.
Only some church members requested this change: "A key figure in the Dutch Reformed Church, Reverend Laurie Gaum, along with his father Dr Frits Gaum and eight other members". That's only 10 people, rather than a representative majority of church members. Reverend Gaum is gay, so he had a vested interest in campaigning for this change. The church itself "maintained these unions did not meet 'Christian guidelines'" (as stated in this article) and "has insisted that as a religious institution it is protected by religious freedom and has the right to make its own rules and follow its own doctrine". Given that Reverend Gaum and his fellow activists had to take this matter to the High Court, it seems the church was unwilling to change of its own accord. It had to be forced to change.
Why was this PN article submitted in lieu of the more descriptive one you linked?
Because this PinkNews article is reporting the current news about the High Court's ruling, whereas the other article I linked in my comment is 6 months old, and doesn't include that current news.