http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1275-0453
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The opening-up of marriage to same-sex couples, which became Dutch law in 2000–2001, is often presented as a triumph of emancipation and secularization. Well into the 1990s, however, the majority of Dutch LGB organizations would have none of it – whereas Catholic and mainline Protestant initiatives at solemnizing homosexual relationships had been taken already since the 1960s. After explaining progressive, secular objections to marriage, this article discusses a number of more or less official, clerical initiatives at public, ritual recognition of same-sex relationships from the 1970s and 1980s. Next, as a historical backdrop, it sketches the emergence of a pastoral discourse on “the homophile neighbor” since the late 1950s. Lastly, it discusses three highly publicized “stunts” from 1967 to 1970. It is argued that religious institutions and traditions have not only posed an obstacle to non-heterosexuals, but offered them a repertoire of symbolic expression and contestation.
Acknowledgements
A first draft of this paper was presented at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion, in a pre-arranged session (‘Nuptial Symbolics’), sponsored by the Gay Men and Religion Group and the Law, Religion, and Culture Group. This work is part of the research project “Contested Privates: The Oppositional Pairing of Religion and Homosexuality in Contemporary Public Discourse in the Netherlands” (Amsterdam Center for the Study of Lived Religion & Utrecht Chair of Religion and Gender). I thank Marvin M. Ellison and Heather R. White for their stimulating responses, and Mariecke van den Berg, Marco Derks, Ruard Ganzevoort, Gert Hekma, Anne-Marie Korte, and Srdjan Sremac for their equally valuable comments.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Note on contributor
David J. Bos studied theology at the University of Groningen, and obtained a PhD in social science from the University of Amsterdam. He was editor-in-chief of the Netherlands’ leading mental health monthly, assistant professor in History of Christianity (Utrecht University), postdoc in the Amsterdam Center for the Study of Lived Religion (VU University), and is now lecturer in sociology at the University of Amsterdam. His publications include Servants of the Kingdom: Professionalization among Ministers of the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands Reformed Church (Leiden: Brill, 2010). Academia: https://vu-nl.academia.edu/DavidBos. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidjbos. ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Bos3.
ORCID
David J. Bos http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1275-0453
Notes
1. Waaldijk, “Small Change,” 437.
2. VWS, Paars over roze: Nota homo-emancipatiebeleid. Den Haag: Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport, 2001. Full details of research material are only provided in notes, not in the list of references.
3. “VVD-fractie verdeeld over homohuwelijk,” Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau (ANP), 20 March 1996.
4. Waaldijk, “Small Change.”
5. In a 1989 interview with Gay Krant, D’Ancona said she was against the legalization of same-sex marriage. In 1990, however, she spoke out in favor of it (see “Een kwart eeuw Gay Krant”; http://archive.is/YfXU#selection-689.0-689.45, consulted on 10 February 2014). See also Elsbeth Etty, “Huwelijk afschuwelijk,” NRC Handelsblad, 1 November 1997 (huwelijk is Dutch for “marriage”; afschuwelijk means “horrible”).
6. T. Bot-van Gijzen, 1 + 1 = samen: Publieke erkenning van lotsverbondenheid: Een christen-democratische bijdrage tot de gedachtenvorming over huwelijkse en niet-huwelijkse tweerelaties: Rapport van een commissie van het Wetenschappelijk Instituut voor het CDA. Den Haag: Wetenschappelijk Instituut voor het CDA, 1986. ('Samen’ in the main title means ‘together.’)
7. Bart Luirink, “Oneerbaar,” De Waarheid, 3 June 1986. (Unless mentioned otherwise, all translations from Dutch in this article are mine).
8. Herman Meijer, “Roomse taktiek in de herhaling,” De Waarheid, 24 June 1986.
9. From 1964 until 1971 its official name had been ‘Dutch Association for Homophiles.’ Before that time, it only bore the “cover-up” name Cultuur- en OntspanningsCentrum (‘Center for Culture and Leisure’). See Warmerdam and Koenders, Cultuur en ontspanning.
10. Strictly speaking, this is an anachronism: these student activists, too, called themselves “homophiles.” In Dutch, unlike English, terms like “homophilia” continue to be used until the present day.
11. Warmerdam and Koenders, Cultuur en ontspanning; Tielman, Homoseksualiteit in Nederland; Hekma, Homoseksualiteit in Nederland.
12. Cf. Mills, The Sociological Imagination.
13. “FSWH voorzitster Joke Swiebel: ‘Studenten moeten koplopers zijn in de seksuele revolutie,’” Seq 1, no. 1 (1969): 31. Swiebel also co-authored a 1969 pamphlet that urged COC to steer a more radical, critical, left-wing course: Henk Branderhorst et al., Afscheid van een moederbinding: Uitdaging van Nieuw Lila aan het COC. Amsterdam: Nieuw Lila, 1969. See also H. W. Methorst, “De homofilie heeft positieve aspecten.” C.O.C. periodiek, no. 6 (1963): 1–5; Gerry Pendel, “Over het homofiele huwelijk.” Vriendschap 19, no. 99 (1964): 137–9.
14. Tielman, Homoseksualiteit in Nederland, 201. Like Swiebel, Tielman had been a founding member the political ginger group that published the aforementioned pamphlet. From 1977 until 1987, he was chairman of the (secularist) Humanist Association (Humanistisch Verbond). In the 1980s he was head of gay studies at Utrecht University.
15. See: Tielman, Homoseksualiteit in Nederland, 232; Hekma, Homoseksualiteit in Nederland, 126.
16. See, for example, “Frank en Gerard trouwen ook niet in Haren,” Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 25 September 1990.
17. “Huwelijk homo's niet erg in zwang,” Leeuwarder Courant, 8 July 1989.
18. Quoted in Waaldijk, “Small Change,” 443; see also idem, “De heteroseksuele exclusiviteit.”
19. Waaldijk, “Small Change,” 441; see also idem, More or less together and The Right to Relate.
20. “Veronica's wonderkind Lenferink mist open doel,” NRC Handelsblad, 31 October 1990.
21. “Homo's pleiten voor trouwregister,” NRC Handelsblad, 27 November 1990; “Plan gelanceerd voor ’trouwregister’ homo's,” Leeuwarder Courant, 27 November 1990.
22. “VNG: Trouwregister is juridisch niet mogelijk,” Leeuwarder Courant, 21 December 1990; see also: “Hoezo huwelijk?” Nederlands Dagblad, 28 November 1990.
23. “Register voor homoparen in Deventer: Gemeente komt als eerste tegemoet aan oproep Gaykrant.” NRC Handelsblad, 22 March 1991.
24. In 1989 already the then director of COC said: ‘Of course, one may wonder if it is advisable to copy heterosexual marriage. On the other hand, “gay marriage” brings with it more equality before the law.’ (“Ja, ik wil … gelijkheid: Ontbreken relatiewetgeving noopt homo's tot proefproces,” De Telegraaf, 4 November 1989).
25. Instead of huwelijksregister (marriage register) it was named trouwregister; trouwen means ‘to marry’ but trouw also means ‘fidelity’ or ‘loyalty’.
26. See: “Haarlem wil huwelijk voor homoparen,” Het Parool, 16 February 1995. In this respect, “refusing registrars” (see Derks’ article in this issue) date from well before 2001.
27. Cf. Derks’ article in this issue.
28. Cf. White, “Gay Rights and Religious Rites.”
29. “Ruime steun voor homohuwelijk, twijfel aan noodzaak,” Reformatorisch Dagblad, 2 September 2000.
30. Hekma, “Ups-and-Downs,” 5–6; cf. “Dutch Legislators Approve Full Marriage Rights for Gays,” New York Times, 15 September 2000.
31. Dutch Civil Code, art. 1:68; http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/civilcodebook01.htm, last consulted on 5 November 2014.
32. See, for example, “Celstraf voor eerst trouwen in de kerk,” Trouw, 28 October 2000.
33. Kerkorde 1989, I, art. 6; quoted in Van der Burg, “Recognition.” The Dutch word for “fidelity” (or “faithfulness,” “loyalty”), trouw, has strong connotations of marriage: trouwen means “to marry.”
34. W. J. Overdiep, “Inzegening van levensverbintenissen.” In Homosexualiteit en theologie, edited by Yko van der Groot and Dinand de Vries, 52–56. ’s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 1988.
35. Wouter Geurtsen, Annet Hofmeijer, and Ton Zondervan, Homo of hetero, gezegend ben je! Remonstranten over huwelijk en andere relatievormen. Utrecht: Interfacultaire Werkgroep Homostudies, 1991.
36. Van der Burg, “Recognition.” See also Wielie Elhorst, and Tom Mikkers, Coming Out Churches – Dutch Edition: Gids voor kerk en homo. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2011.
37. Latten, “Trends in samenwonen en trouwen,” 46–60.
38. Lim, Het spoor van de vrouw.
39. When exactly is hard to say, given Mennonites’ decentralized form of church governance.
40. Van der Burg, “Recognition.”
41. “Lutherse synode stemt voor homo-huwelijk en duidelijkheid over SoW,” Trouw, 6 November 2000.
42. “Amsterdamse lutheranen eisen alsnog synodebesluit over homohuwelijk,” Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau (ANP), 20 June 1995.
43. Kerkorde en ordinanties van de Protestantse Kerk in Nederland (2004), Ordinantie 5, art. 4.1.
44. “Verontrusting over besluit Kerkeraad: Dienst voor homofiel ‘huwelijk’,” Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 16 March 1979; see also: “Hervormde kerkerend staat homofiele trouw-plechtigheid toe,” Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 9 March 1979; “Homofielen ‘trouwen’ in dienst Hervormde gemeente,” Nederlands Dagblad, 15 March 1979.
45. “‘Kerk heeft ereschuld tegenover homofiele medemens’: Veel reacties op besluit Groninger kerkeraad,” Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 15 March 1979.
46. “Grondslag,” Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 13 March 1979; “Homofiele relatie in kerk bevestigd,” Leeuwarder Courant, 17 March 1979; “Unicum,” Leeuwarder Courant, 17 March 1979; “Groningse GB-wijkkerkeraad: discussie over homofiele relatie moest vooraf gebeuren,” Nederlands Dagblad, 28 March 1979. The church council had taken its decision with 9 against 6 votes.
47. Both had been appointed by the Vatican in the early 1970s, to curb the revolutionary trends in Dutch Catholicism; cf. Coleman, Evolution.
48. See https://www.historischnieuwsblad.nl/nl/artikel/6324/25-jaar-na-de-eerste-roze-zaterdag-in-roermond.html, last consulted on 25 Febraury 2017.
49. “Kerk heeft ereschuld tegenover homofiele medemens’: Veel reacties op besluit Groninger kerkeraad,” Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 15 March 1979. The 10% pertain to hervormden (i.e. members of the NRC), the 15% to gereformeerden, which can refer to mainline Reformed (RCN) as well as ultra-orthodox Calvinists.
50. “Conflict bisschop met pastor om lesbisch huwelijk in Groningen,” Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 12 March 1983 [front page]; see also “Twee vrouwen trouwen,” Het Vrije Volk, 12 March 1983; see also “Priest Faces Discipline For Lesbian Wedding,” Logansport Pharos-Tribune, 13 March 1983.
51. “Twee vrouwen getrouwd,” De Telegraaf, 12 March 1983. A few days later, the couple was interviewed in a popular talk show on public television (‘Tros TV-show,’ 15 March 1983) and explained – speaking with a markedly northern accent – they had turned to the Church because civil marriage was impossible.
52. Quoted in “Pastor betreurt nu lesbische ‘trouwerij’,” Leeuwarder Courant, 19 March 1983.
53. COC-werkgroep Geloof en Levensbeschouwing Friesland, “Gezegende relatie,” Leeuwarder Courant, 25 March 1983. The local ‘political queer collective The Pink Rat’, on the other hand, briefly occupied the wedding room of city hall, in order to denounce ‘the oppression of homosexuals by heterosexual society,’ stating they were ‘unwilling to adapt to this straight symbol called marriage’ (“Trouwzaal bezet,” De Waarheid, 25 March 1983).
54. On the eve of Pink Saturday 1989, a male couple had their relationship blessed in an RCN church in The Hague, with the explicit permission of the local church council. In this respect, the event differed from the discrete solemnizations by the church's previous pastor, A. J. R. Brussaard. See “Trouwviering homopaar in Haagse Kerk,” Leeuwarder Courant, 7 June 1989; “Homo-relatie wordt ingezegend – In (syn.) gereformeerde kerkdienst in Den Haag,” Nederlands Dagblad, 8 June 1989; “Gereformeerde viering trouwbelofte mannen,” Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 8 June 1989; see also “Huwelijk homo's niet erg in zwang,” Leeuwarder Courant, 8 July 1989. Brussaard was one of the pioneers of the pastoral approach to homosexuality that will be discussed in the next section. See also A. J. R. Brusaard et al., Een mens hoeft niet alleen te blijven: Een evangelische visie op homofilie. Baarn: Ten Have, 1977.
In 1992 a joint NRC-RCN parish in The Hague officially announced that same-sex couples could have their relationship solemnized. See: “Homo-huwelijk,” Het Parool, 23 October 1992.
In 1993, the minister of a joint NRC-RCN parish close to Amsterdam asked the local church council permission for having her same-sex relationship blessed in church. A minority objected, mainly to the public character of the church service. At their request, a “referendum” was held among the ca. 400 members of the congregation. 51 of them voted for, 10 against. The blessing eventually took place in February 1994. See “Lesbisch predikante vraagt kerkelijke inzegening relatie,” ANP, 10 June 1993; “Lesbische dominee wil inzegening,” Het Parool, 11 June 1993; “Homo-predikante,” Trouw, 11 June 1993; “Lesbische predikante,” Het Parool, 23 June 1993; “Inzegening lesbische relatie in kerk,” NRC Handelsblad, 23 June 1993; “Een lesbische relatie is een godsgeschenk,” Het Parool, 13 November 1993; “Zegen,” Trouw, 13 November 1993; “Lesbische liefde dominee in eigen kerk gezegend,” Trouw, 11 February 1994.
55. Mader, “Exclusion, Toleration, Acceptance, Integration.” Bos, De aard, de daad en het Woord.
56. In May 1989, Taskforce of Catholic Gay Pastors (established in 1980) sent a “pastoral letter” to all Catholic parishes in the Netherlands, in which it pleaded for blessing all sorts of intimate relationships. See Werkverband van Katholieke Homo-Pastores, Tot zegen bereid: Pastorale brief over het vieren van vriendschap. Hilversum: Gooi & Sticht, 2000. also Korte, Vosman and De Wit, Ordening.
57. Suèr, Niet te geloven; cf. Kennedy, “Recent Dutch Religious History.”
58. Coleman, The Evolution of Dutch Catholicism; Oosterhuis, Homoseksualiteit in katholiek Nederland.
59. Westhoff, Geestelijke bevrijders.
60. Van Stolk, Eigenwaarde als groepsbelang; Tonkens, Het zelfontplooiingsregime.
61. A. F. C. Overing et al., Homosexualiteit [Pastorale Cahiers, vol. 3]. Hilversum: Paul Brand, 1961.
62. A. L. Janse de Jonge et al., De homosexuele naaste. Baarn: Bosch & Keuning, 1961; see also Goossensen and Sleutjes 1985, “De homosexuele naaste.”
63. C. J. B. J. Trimbos, Gehuwd en ongehuwd. Hilversum: Paul Brand, 1961; cf. Oosterhuis, Homoseksualiteit in katholiek Nederland.
64. At the end of the 1960s there were twenty get-together groups; at the end of the 1990s no less than 225. See: Alje Klamer, “Praktisch pastoraat aan homofielen.” In Pastorale zorg voor homofielen, edited by A. J. R. Brussaard, 46–9. Utrecht: Het Spectrum, 1968. See also: http://www.dekringen.nl/hoe-zijn-de-kringen-ontstaan, last consulted on 31 October 2014; Posthumus, Kringen in de branding.
65. J. J. M. Vriend, “De werkzaamheden van de Centrale Pastorale Werkgroep Homofilie.” In Een mens hoeft niet alleen te blijven: Een evangelische visie op homofilie, edited by A. J. R. Brusaard et al., 159–66. Baarn: Ten Have, 1977.
66. Westhoff, Geestelijke bevrijders, 431.
67. J. B. F. Gottschalk, “Het pastorale gesprek met de homofiel.” In Pastorale zorg voor homofielen, edited by A. J. R. Brussaard et al., 36–41. Utrecht: Het Spectrum, 1968.
68. Bos, “Woe the pastor.”
69. “Homofiel wordt door zielzorg verwaarloosd,” De Tijd, 1 June 1967.
70. “Vrijmoedig commentaar,” De Tijd, 1 June 1967.
71. E. J. Schraven, “Leugenachtig,” De Tijd, 3 June 1967. The other speaker was Theo Beemer.
72. Redactie, “Nawoord,” De Tijd, 3 June 1967.
73. Th. A. Terwindt, “Namens de werkgroep,” De Tijd, 3 June 1967.
74. Redactie, “Naschrift,” De Tijd, 7 June 1967.
75. “Vreemde plechtigheid in kerk: Bisdom afwijzend,” De Tijd, 1 July 1967; see also: “Bisdom distantieert zich van homofiel huwelijk,” Het Vrije Volk, 3 July 1967; “Bisdom Rotterdam niet achter homofiel huwelijk,” Leeuwarder Courant, 3 July 1967.
76. “Homofielen wisselden ‘trouwringen’ tijdens mis te Rotterdam – Katholieke gelovigen verontrust,” Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 3 July 1967.
77. “Homofiel ‘echtpaar’ dreigt bisdom met een proces,” Het Vrije Volk, 4 July 1967.
78. “Homofielen lieten hun ‘huwelijk’ inzegenen: Geestelijken misleid,” Limburgsch Dagblad, 4 July 1967.
79. Welkom Bar alias Welcome Bar, Watergeusstraat 115 A, Rotterdam.
80. “Het homofielen-huwelijk: Geestelijken zijn om de tuin geleid: Bisdom niet op de hoogte,” De Tijd, 5 July 1967.
81. “Homofiel ‘echtpaar’ dreigt bisdom met een proces,” Het Vrije Volk, 4 July 1967.
82. In an interview with a regional newspaper, the spouses – ‘H.R. (26)’ and ‘J.M. (24)’ – responded to all this criticism:. “Getrouwde homofielen: ‘We hadden behoefte voor God vriendschap te bezegelen’,” Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 7 July 1967.
83. “Het homofielen-huwelijk: Geestelijken zijn om de tuin geleid: Bisdom niet op de hoogte,” De Tijd, 5 July 1967.
84. “Deze week: Homofilie,” Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 8 July 1967.
85. In a letter to the editor, a reader of De Tijd reported having seen an illustrated report of the ‘wedding’ in the British tabloid News of the World: M., “Rotterdams ‘huwelijk’,” De Tijd, 12 July 1967. Earlier the men themselves had announced they would sell the pictures to a West-German tabloid, Bildzeitung, and threatened to sue the episcopacy: “Homofiel ‘echtpaar’”dreigt bisdom met een proces,” Het Vrije Volk, 4 July 1967. See also: “Mann zu mann,” Die Zeit (28 July 1967); Charles Sanders, “Homosexuals become ‘man’ and ‘wife’ in unusual wedding: Catholics are outraged,” Jet Magazine, 21 September 1967.
86. English translation: Gerard Reve, The Evenings: A Winter's Tale. London: Pushkin, 2016.
87. “Kijk en luister: Voortreffelijk portret van Gerard van het Reve,” Leeuwarder Courant, 12 December 1963.
88. G. K. van het Reve, “Brief aan mijn bank.” Dialoog: tijdschrift voor homofilie en maatschappij 1, no. 1 (1965): 20–1. This letter was published in the very first issue of a new ‘magazine for homophilia and society’ that had Van het Reve himself as one of its editors. In the third issue, the Rev. A. J. R. Brussaard (RCN) and the Catholic father J. Gottschalk protested against Van het Reve's epistle, because it might harm acceptance of “homophilia.” Both pastors were pioneers in pastoral care for homophiles, and led get-together groups of homophile Christians (see Section 4).
The blasphemy charge also pertained to a passage in Reve's 1966 book Nader tot U: ‘And God Himself would come over to me in the form of a one-year-old, mouse-grey Donkey and be standing in front of the door and ring the bill and say: “Gerard, that book of yours – will you believe I cried at some parts?” “My Lord and my God! Praised live [sic] Your Name for all Eternity! I love You so terribly much,” I would try to say, but would burst out blubbering halfway, and start to kiss Him and pull Him inside, and after an enormous scramble getting up the stairs to the little bedroom, would possess Him three times in a row and at great length in His Secret Opening, and then give him a complimentary copy, not sewn but hardbound – no time for stinginess and pettiness – with the inscription: to the infinite. without words.’ Gerard Reve, Nader tot U. Amsterdam: Van Oorschot, 1966, 120.
89. J. H. W. Veenstra, “The greatest show in church.” Tirade 14, no. 1 (1970): 50–4.
90. In 1966, Van het Reve had written a Dutch translation – first titled Knippen en Scheren, later: De Trap – of Charles Dyer's theatre play Staircase, which he called a ‘comedy about the inadequacy of human love, about the disintegration of all illusions by old age, and about the ubiquitous, unknown God: Death.’
91. Kennedy, Nieuw Babylon in aanbouw; Bos, “Vooral protestants opgevoede mensen.”
92. Nico Schepmaker, “G. K. van het Reve's feest: Een onvergetelijke avond,” Leeuwarder Courant, 24 October 1969. See also: Jaap Koopmans, “Van het Reve's poppenkast,” Het Vrije Volk, 24 October 1969; N. N., “De G.K. van het Reveshow,” De Tijd, 24 October 1969.
93. [92] Maas, Gerard Reve, 511.
94. “Van het Reve: Algra, Luns en andere stenengooiers,” Het Vrije Volk, 2 November 1963.
95. In the mid-1960s, a Dutch Catholic priest blessed the relationship between two women (personal communication Gea Zijlstra, July 2016).
96. In this panel, Van het Reve clashed with Swiebel, who spoke out against marriage. One month later he terminated his membership of COC. See Maas, Gerard Reve, 518–19.
97. “Van het Reve vindt: Forum homofilie modeverschijnsel,” Limburgsch Dagblad, 10 November 1969; see also Het Vrije Volk, 10 November 1969.
98. “Dr. Heggen in Heerlen: Homofiele vriendenband kerkelijk bevestigen,” Limburgsch Dagblad, 10 November 1969 (front page).
99. Harry Thomas, Herman: De liefde van een homofiel. Huizen: Triton, 1969. The book was announced on 16 May 1969 in the leading social-democratic newspaper, Het Vrije Volk.
100. Harry Thomas, Ik ben een homo / Herman; Delta (DS 1318; 7″ vinyl). See also: “Moeilijkheden homo op plaat,” De Friese Koerier, 24 May 1969.
101. Thomas, Herman, 159–60.
102. Harry Thomas, Een homofiel wordt geslagen. Utrecht: Harry Thomas, 1970, 152.
103. Trouw, 12 December 1969, quoted in ‘Harry Thomas,’ Informatiebulletin Dialoog 3, no. 5 (1970): 433. See also: “Homofielen-partij wil in de Kamer: Contra COC en vóór wettig ‘vriendenhuwelijk’,” Het Vrije Volk, 15 December 1969.
104. Algemeen Handelsblad, 2 February 1970, quoted in “Harry Thomas,” Informatiebulletin Dialoog 3, no. 5 (1970): 437.
105. “Voor tweede keer in kerk ‘huwelijk’ van homofielen,” Het Vrije Volk, 11 May 1970.
106. “Kardinaal spreekt met voorzitter homofielenpartij,” Het Vrije Volk, 5 June 1970.
107. See: “Osservatore fel tegen ‘huwelijken’ homofielen,” De Tijd, 27 July 1970; “Osservatore tegen homofiele huwelijken,” Leeuwarder Courant, 27 July 1970.
108. “Rota-rechter: Homofiel huwelijk is geen huwelijk,” Limburgsch Dagblad, 17 September 1970 (front page).
109. According to one of the members of the Pastoral Taskforce, Alfrink had already received a request for allowing the solemnization of a same-sex relationship in March 1970 – that is, before Thomas publicized his plan. See J. J. M. Vriend, “De werkzaamheden van de Centrale Pastorale Werkgroep Homofilie.” In Een mens hoeft niet alleen te blijven: Een evangelische visie op homofilie, edited by A. J. R. Brussaard et al., 159–67. Baarn: Ten Have, 1977.See also “Harry Thomas,” Informatiebulletin Dialoog 3, no. 5 (1970): 454.
110. “Zielzorgers wijzen inzegening af,” De Tijd, 4 June 1970; “Inzegening homofiele vriendschap taboe,” De Telegraaf, 12 June 1970.
111. “Bisschoppen: Inzegening vriendschap ongewenst,” De Tijd, 12 June 1970; “Bisschoppen keuren kerkelijk huwelijk homofielen af,” Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 12 June 1970; “Bisschoppen keuren kerkelijk ‘huwelijk’ homofielen niet goed,” Leeuwarder Courant, 13 June 1970; “Geen inzegening van homofiele vriendschap,” Nederlands Dagblad, 16 June 1970; “Homofielen zien af van inzegening,” De Tijd, 16 June 1970.
112. Informatiebulletin Dialoog 3, no. 5 (1970): 453–9; cf. Tielman, Homoseksualiteit in Nederland. Meppel: Boom, 1982, 199–201.
113. “Thomas overlijdt aan hartverlamming,” Nieuwe Leidsche Courant, 3 July 1971; “Harry Thomas niet dood,” Nieuwe Leidsche Courant, 8 July 1971.
114. White, “Gay Rights and Religious Rites”; idem, Reforming Sodom; see also White's article in this issue.
115. Hekma, Homoseksualiteit in Nederland.
116. Martin, A General Theory of Secularization; Bos, “Woe the Pastor.”
117. Kuyper, Iedema and Keuzenkamp, Towards Tolerance, 17.
118. Bos, “Vooral protestants opgevoede mensen.”
119. Jordan, Blessing Same-Seks Unions; Petro, After the Wrath of God.
120. Hekma, Homoseksualiteit in Nederland.
121. Mooij, Geen paniek!; Hekma and Duyvendak, “The Netherlands.”