France rules mayors have to perform gay marriages

[FaxModem1]

France 24/7

France rules mayors cannot refuse to marry gay couples
© AFP
France's Constitutional Council has ruled that the country's mayors cannot refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings, rejecting a bid by a group of mayors who claimed gay marriage went against their moral or religious beliefs.
By Claire WILLIAMS (video)
FRANCE 24 (text)


France's highest court ruled on Friday that the country's mayors cannot refuse to officiate at same-sex marriages, rejecting a bid by a group of mayors who claimed gay marriage went against their moral or religious beliefs.

The Constitutional Council's ruling followed an appeal by mayors and registrars opposed to France’s controversial bill legalising same-sex marriages, which came into effect in May this year.

In pictures: Paris Pride parade toasts gay marriage
FRANCE
In pictures: Paris Pride parade toasts gay marriage

They argued that the same-sex marriage bill should have included a “freedom of conscience” clause, giving officiators the right not to carry out same-sex marriages if it conflicts with their personal religious or moral beliefs. The lack of such a clause in the bill goes against the French constitution, they claim.

But the Council, France’s highest legal authority, rejected this argument in its ruling on Friday morning.

“The Council judged that, in view of the functions of a state official in the officiating of a marriage, the legislation does not violate their freedom of conscience,” the Council said in a statement.

‘A political decision’

Jean-Michel Colo, the Mayor of Arcangues in southwest France who hit headlines in June when he became the first official to refuse to marry a gay couple, denounced the Council’s decision.

“The Constitutional Council has been manipulated by politics. It is a political decision,” he told AFP.

Colo said that the group of mayors would now take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Meanwhile, the group Manif Pour Tous, which has been at the forefront of protests against the legalisation of same-sex marriage, said it supports “all the mayors who courageously dare to assert their right to freedom of conscience”.

The organisation says a petition it launched in defence of the right of mayors not to officiate at gay weddings has collected more than 80,000 signatures.

In France, marriages can only be made official by state authorities, though many couples also celebrate religious weddings.

(FRANCE 24 with wires)

Looks like France made another progressive step.

But playing devil's advocate, if I was a mayor of some city in somewhere, and I was asked to perform a poly amorous wedding, I would probably be personally uncomfortable with it. Would that be a moral dilemma, should I just man up and do my duty as a public official, or is it not okay that this would go against my personal beliefs and I should do what I can to not go against my personal principles?

[Borgholio]

Would that be a moral dilemma, should I just man up and do my duty as a public official, or is it not okay that this would go against my personal beliefs and I should do what I can to not go against my personal principles?

Personal beliefs cannot overrule the law, unless the law itself is unreasonable or unfair. In this case, the law is forcing the mayors to treat people as equals. That is a good thing. Thus, they cannot refuse on moral or personal grounds.

[bilateralrope]

Would that be a moral dilemma, should I just man up and do my duty as a public official, or is it not okay that this would go against my personal beliefs and I should do what I can to not go against my personal principles?

Personal beliefs cannot overrule the law, unless the law itself is unreasonable or unfair. In this case, the law is forcing the mayors to treat people as equals. That is a good thing. Thus, they cannot refuse on moral or personal grounds.

At the same time, how many people want to get married by someone who doesn't approve of their marriage ?

By letting someone opt out of performing a marriage they don't approve of, it makes their bigotry obvious while planning the wedding. Instead of forcing the bigotry to be hidden and hoping it doesn't show up at the wedding.

[Grumman]

But playing devil's advocate, if I was a mayor of some city in somewhere, and I was asked to perform a poly amorous wedding, I would probably be personally uncomfortable with it. Would that be a moral dilemma, should I just man up and do my duty as a public official, or is it not okay that this would go against my personal beliefs and I should do what I can to not go against my personal principles?

You should man up and do it because polygamy is not in itself immoral. If you were being asked to perform a wedding between a sixteen year old girl and a fifty year old lecher then you'd have some moral grounds to object, but that's true regardless of whether there was another woman in the mix.

[Highlord Laan]

Looks like France made another progressive step.

But playing devil's advocate, if I was a mayor of some city in somewhere, and I was asked to perform a poly amorous wedding, I would probably be personally uncomfortable with it. Would that be a moral dilemma, should I just man up and do my duty as a public official, or is it not okay that this would go against my personal beliefs and I should do what I can to not go against my personal principles?

The moment one is elected to office, your own moral standings are second place at best to the rule of law. You represent everyone, not just yourself or your chosen groups. If officiating a homosexual or poly-whatever marriage is too much for you, despite it being legal, than the only option is for you to step down.

[SMJB]

But playing devil's advocate, if I was a mayor of some city in somewhere, and I was asked to perform a poly amorous wedding, I would probably be personally uncomfortable with it. Would that be a moral dilemma, should I just man up and do my duty as a public official, or is it not okay that this would go against my personal beliefs and I should do what I can to not go against my personal principles?

You should man up and do it because polygamy is not in itself immoral. If you were being asked to perform a wedding between a sixteen year old girl and a fifty year old lecher then you'd have some moral grounds to object, but that's true regardless of whether there was another woman in the mix.

They are, however, very difficult to pull off in a functional manner, breeding grounds for jealousy, and rarely crop up in an organic manner--usually, they are arranged marriages set up by some cult or something.

[Irbis]

But playing devil's advocate, if I was a mayor of some city in somewhere, and I was asked to perform a poly amorous wedding, I would probably be personally uncomfortable with it. Would that be a moral dilemma, should I just man up and do my duty as a public official, or is it not okay that this would go against my personal beliefs and I should do what I can to not go against my personal principles?

You know, idiot right wingers made the same argument about abortions here - why should doctor be forced to perform one in state hospital? And proceeded to write 'principles' clause into the law. Result: doctors refusing to perform it en masse for free while saying "wink, wink, I bet that guy who is totally not me who has fully paid practice here after 16 can do something about it"

State service is state service, you don't want to do it, then GTFO and look for job elsewhere. Law should be the same for all, regardless of personal Manitou of the official.

[Tiriol]

State service is state service, you don't want to do it, then GTFO and look for job elsewhere. Law should be the same for all, regardless of personal Manitou of the official.

I have to agree. Mayors etc. are NOT private inviduals when performing state functions: they are local government personified and as such represantives of the state. They cannot pick and choose what laws and regulations to enforce or not to enforce. Neither are they members of the clergy (usually), but even if they were, they would still be performing state functions. If they think that the law or regulation is wrong or unjust, they should say so and resign as a protest (the GTFO option). To do otherwise is to undermine the trust of the populace in a fair and equal government.

[Singular Intellect]

Are mayors obligated to perform wedding ceremonies at all? I'm personally unaware of that function being part of the mayor's office.

An elected official certainly can't discriminate in violation of the law while performing duties, but surely a mayor is permitted to refusing doing marriage ceremonies if they don't want to?

[Sea Skimmer]

French mayors aren't the same as mayors in many countries. While locally elected and head of local government, they are also direct representatives of France's centralized government, and the communes they head are all established by the central government. This is unlike in say the US where the state's can create as many towns ect... as they want and each with a mayor and each with as much or little of the state's power as said state wishes it to have. At least in PA we have multiple types of township and borough which have different powers from each other already. One can be vested with state specific powers totally unconnected to federal power. Canada I think is at least broadly similar. France is not like that at all. Everything from the top, everything equal.

So in France mayor can be thought of as two jobs in one almost. Acting as a registrar of births, deaths and marriages is part of the fixed central government duties and IIRC that goes back directly to the French revolution, unchanged by all the Republic's since. So the central government very much can tell them what they do in that job, and if they don't want to do it they can get a new job.

[Singular Intellect]

Well, that certainly makes more sense then.

[blahface]

But playing devil's advocate, if I was a mayor of some city in somewhere, and I was asked to perform a poly amorous wedding, I would probably be personally uncomfortable with it. Would that be a moral dilemma, should I just man up and do my duty as a public official, or is it not okay that this would go against my personal beliefs and I should do what I can to not go against my personal principles?

You should man up and do it because polygamy is not in itself immoral. If you were being asked to perform a wedding between a sixteen year old girl and a fifty year old lecher then you'd have some moral grounds to object, but that's true regardless of whether there was another woman in the mix.

It is immoral because a divorce is going to be overly complicated and it will clog the courts. It would however be fantastic for scumbag divorce lawyers.

[loomer]

A complicated divorce is not a morality issue.

[Silver Jedi]

But playing devil's advocate, if I was a mayor of some city in somewhere, and I was asked to perform a poly amorous wedding, I would probably be personally uncomfortable with it. Would that be a moral dilemma, should I just man up and do my duty as a public official, or is it not okay that this would go against my personal beliefs and I should do what I can to not go against my personal principles?

You should man up and do it because polygamy is not in itself immoral. If you were being asked to perform a wedding between a sixteen year old girl and a fifty year old lecher then you'd have some moral grounds to object, but that's true regardless of whether there was another woman in the mix.

It is immoral because a divorce is going to be overly complicated and it will clog the courts. It would however be fantastic for scumbag divorce lawyers.

If you (as the hypothetical mayor) feel that strongly, you should petition your lawmakers to change the laws, not simply decide on your own that you are the moral judge of your entire country (or whatever). Members of civilized society don't just get to ignore laws they disagree with, especially public officials.

[blahface]

If you (as the hypothetical mayor) feel that strongly, you should petition your lawmakers to change the laws, not simply decide on your own that you are the moral judge of your entire country (or whatever). Members of civilized society don't just get to ignore laws they disagree with, especially public officials.

I was talking about polygamy, not gay marriage. Either way, I don't think anyone should ignore laws. If polygamy becomes legal, it should be upheld, but I don't think it should become legal because divorces would be overly complicated and it would clog the courts.

[loomer]

Which, again, is not a moral issue.

[Gandalf]

I was talking about polygamy, not gay marriage. Either way, I don't think anyone should ignore laws. If polygamy becomes legal, it should be upheld, but I don't think it should become legal because divorces would be overly complicated and it would clog the courts.

Ever see a divorce when there's children in the mix?

[General Zod]

But playing devil's advocate, if I was a mayor of some city in somewhere, and I was asked to perform a poly amorous wedding, I would probably be personally uncomfortable with it. Would that be a moral dilemma, should I just man up and do my duty as a public official, or is it not okay that this would go against my personal beliefs and I should do what I can to not go against my personal principles?

You should man up and do it because polygamy is not in itself immoral. If you were being asked to perform a wedding between a sixteen year old girl and a fifty year old lecher then you'd have some moral grounds to object, but that's true regardless of whether there was another woman in the mix.

It is immoral because a divorce is going to be overly complicated and it will clog the courts. It would however be fantastic for scumbag divorce lawyers.

If "clogging the courts" was a legitimate argument no new pieces of legislation would ever be passed.