Court: French mayors must conduct gay marriages

Oct 18, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: WBOC-TV Salisbury

France's constitutional court has ruled that mayors cannot refuse to carry out same-sex marriages just because they oppose them.

Comments
1 - 19 of 19 Comments Last updated Oct 20, 2013

Since: Jan 08

Thailand

#1 Oct 18, 2013
When will these jerks learn that "public" in "public service" means ALL the public, not those they choose to serve. Doesn't matter if it's in North America or Europe.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#2 Oct 18, 2013
Dubya wrote:
When will these jerks learn that "public" in "public service" means ALL the public, not those they choose to serve. Doesn't matter if it's in North America or Europe.
Exactly.

Those who are unable to perform their jobs as public servants are morally obligated to resign so that someone who can actually do the job can step in.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#3 Oct 18, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly.
Those who are unable to perform their jobs as public servants are morally obligated to resign so that someone who can actually do the job can step in.
That would put an end to the entire republican party

Since: May 12

Livonia, MI

#4 Oct 18, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
That would put an end to the entire republican party
And that would be a bad thing why??

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5 Oct 18, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly.
Those who are unable to perform their jobs as public servants are morally obligated to resign so that someone who can actually do the job can step in.
Or delegate.

I think that is a reasonable compromise.
Gremlin

Louisville, KY

#7 Oct 18, 2013
Go, gay rights, go!!!!!
Rudy

Anonymous Proxy

#8 Oct 18, 2013
It appears the French government is forcing homosexuality on the people against their will.
Gremlin

Louisville, KY

#9 Oct 18, 2013
Rudy wrote:
It appears the French government is forcing homosexuality on the people against their will.
That's the same absurd statement you bigots repeat like parrots. The real truth is, you can't stand the thought of gays having the same rights as everyone else.
Brian

Attleboro, MA

#10 Oct 18, 2013
Rudy wrote:
It appears the French government is forcing homosexuality on the people against their will.
It's better than imposing religion on them against their will.
Gays are much more fun than religious nutbags!
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#11 Oct 18, 2013
Rudy wrote:
It appears the French government is forcing homosexuality on the people against their will.
Did you change back into a straight person after you moved to Romania?
Gremlin

Louisville, KY

#12 Oct 18, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you change back into a straight person after you moved to Romania?
Too bad he can't change into a human being.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#13 Oct 18, 2013
Rudy wrote:
It appears the French government is forcing homosexuality on the people against their will.
It appears that your little lie machine is in high gear this morning! LOVE the petulant angry icons you pepper every post with, yet, plaster YOUR posts with smiley face ones,coward. I guess when you log on under 500 false names you can do that. I wish I had your unlimited TIME to do that. Do you keep a list of your fake names next to your Cheetos stained computer?
Sir Andrew

Honolulu, HI

#14 Oct 18, 2013
Curteese: Surely it's more than 500 by now. I figured our little closet case, lying friend has the baby name book that lists several thousand names and is just going through it at random, marking each one as he uses it. And using, as well, an atlas to see what countries are out there. I'm hoping it's an old atlas so he'll give himself away when he uses Czechoslovakia or some other nonexistent former nation. His posts are predictable, especially when jeanpaul has posted something, so the thrill comes from seeing which name and country he picks for each entry.

It's sad that he doesn't realize what a buffoon he's become. But for entertainment value, it's good for us.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#15 Oct 18, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Or delegate.
I think that is a reasonable compromise.
In this example (in France) mayors are authorized to perform marriages. If a mayor refuses to do their duty, there isn't a spare mayor handy in the town since towns only have one mayor each.

I'm also wondering why the public in general should be expected to change the rules to accommodate bigots. For example, when passing laws to stop racism, are lawmakers expected to compromise to allow racists to continue their prejudice against others?
Sir Andrew

Honolulu, HI

#16 Oct 18, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>

"I'm also wondering why the public in general should be expected to change the rules to accommodate bigots. For example, when passing laws to stop racism, are lawmakers expected to compromise to allow racists to continue their prejudice against others?
"

Yes, they are. At least bigots hold that view. This is the same thing that happened after Loving v Virginia when the Supremes made their statement about marriage belonging to everyone, regardless of color, creed and so forth. A good many columnists and commentators from the south demanded the right to refuse to perform an interracial wedding for those who believed them to be wrong. They wanted conscience exemptions exactly like those demanded today. Bigots will always be bigots; idiots will always be idiots. It is the way of things until we find a way to gather up all the moronic naysayers and ship them to an island in the middle of the ocean (not Hawai'i, please; that's where I live). How about Ascension Island?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#17 Oct 19, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
In this example (in France) mayors are authorized to perform marriages. If a mayor refuses to do their duty, there isn't a spare mayor handy in the town since towns only have one mayor each.
I'm also wondering why the public in general should be expected to change the rules to accommodate bigots. For example, when passing laws to stop racism, are lawmakers expected to compromise to allow racists to continue their prejudice against others?
In order to preserve, protect and defend religious freedom it's a compromise I'm willing to live with. Really. Who would it harm? It's a harmless solution.

Since: Apr 08

Rockwood, Canada

#18 Oct 20, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
In order to preserve, protect and defend religious freedom it's a compromise I'm willing to live with. Really. Who would it harm? It's a harmless solution.
I have no problem with laws that make it clear religious organizations and public figures like priests would not be required to perform functions like marriages which violate their religious rules. Just like how Catholic priests are not forced to perform weddings for non-Catholics.

That is very different from saying secular public figures like mayors or pharmacists or doctors or teachers etc. can refuse to do their jobs and discriminate against members of the public because of a religious opinion they hold.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#19 Oct 20, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no problem with laws that make it clear religious organizations and public figures like priests would not be required to perform functions like marriages which violate their religious rules. Just like how Catholic priests are not forced to perform weddings for non-Catholics.
That is very different from saying secular public figures like mayors or pharmacists or doctors or teachers etc. can refuse to do their jobs and discriminate against members of the public because of a religious opinion they hold.
Generally, I agree. But specifically I don't mind if a Town or County functionary doesn't want to serve us, as long as there is SOMEONE in the office who will do so. Not everyone needs to learn ASL or SEE-Signs for deaf people, nor braille for the blind, but the services must be available upon request.

As I said, it's a COMPROMISE, and one that harms nobody.

Conversely, I definitely DO have problems with making ANY laws which respect any Establishment of Religion, even to clarify a pre-existing exemption. That's already covered by Amendment. I., and any other Laws just weaken that. They aren't necessary and are, in fact, legally dangerous to that Amendment.

The ONLY place I except from the Amendment. I. exclusion is the Chaplain Corps, wherein any serving chaplain MUST provide services to ALL service persons regardless of religion or sect. Period. It's simple do it or get out of the Military.
Efram

Anonymous Proxy

#20 Oct 20, 2013
Rudy wrote:
It appears the French government is forcing homosexuality on the people against their will.
Yes, there is more and more of this going on in many countries. Eventually the decent people will get fed up, say enough is enough and begin to fight back.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Single Women Raise Gay Sons: Pat Robertson short 11 min Fa-Foxy 21
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 24 min Pietro Armando 54,871
Biggest Gay Lies 44 min Dwayne 1,678
3 states, plaintiffs want Supreme Court to hear... 1 hr Fa-Foxy 5
Gay taunts 'a little bit like racism' 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 13
California Takes a Stand Against Gay and Trans ... 1 hr eJohn 39
Jamaican ends legal challenge to anti-sodomy law 2 hr TomInElPaso 2
Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972... 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 540
Gay Marriage Vs. the First Amendment 4 hr dduttonnc 398
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••