French high court upholds traditional marriage.

I'll have to say I'm surprised by this one; I always thought the French were WAY far beyond the US in their political correctness and embracing progressive causes.

French High Court Affirms Traditional Marriage

PARIS, February 3 (C-FAM) A ruling in the homeland of “égalité” last week found the French prohibition of same-sex marriage is in accord with the French constitution, effectively ruling that there is nothing unequal about upholding the definition of marriage as between man and woman.

The demand for “equality” is the hallmark of most national and international campaigns for homosexual rights, particularly those concerned with same-sex marriage. Discussions at the UN regarding sexual orientation are rife with references to equality and non-discrimination.

The French Constitutional Council is the nation’s highest authority on the constitution, and while it normally advises the government on the constitutionality of elections and laws, it also has authority to rule on constitutionality of individual cases brought to it by French citizens. This fall, the Council accepted the case of a lesbian couple that challenged the constitutionality of the French Civil Code (which identifies marriage between man and woman), claiming the exclusion of same-sex marriage violated a citizen’s right to lead a “normal family life” and the principle of equality before the law.

The Council ruled last Friday that because of the difference of situations between same-sex and heterosexual couples, the difference in treatment in family laws is justified and not in violation of the principle of equality. As for the right to a normal family life, the court found that the pacte civil de solidarité, a form of civil union that accords a plethora of legal, fiscal, and official benefits, is sufficient for a “normal family life.”

C-Fam


It seems that the French court has recognised that marriage is a religious institution and the government has no business defining religious practices and that the civil union law they set up confers all the legal benefits of marriage to same sex couples.

It makes sense to me, if they wanted the same legal benifits as married couples, they have them. What's the big fuss over the name?

Not too worried about this... It's the French...

They will surrender at the first sign of aggression... They always do...

It's in their DNA... It's also traditional (for the French...)

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Not too worried about this... It's the French...

They will surrender at the first sign of aggression... They always do...

It's in their DNA... It's also traditional (for the French...)

1789 - 1799.

Anyway....better to fight and surrender than not fight at all like a sissy.

reply to post by nerbot


Napoleon doesn't count... He was a Corsican... If he had been French... Well, I think that the white flag would have been used alot more... Just sayin'...

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by nerbot

 

Napoleon doesn't count... He was a Corsican... If he had been French... Well, I think that the white flag would have been used alot more... Just sayin'...

loool dumb american and were is corsica?????
c une ile française imbecile heureux

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by nerbot

 

Napoleon doesn't count... He was a Corsican... If he had been French... Well, I think that the white flag would have been used alot more... Just sayin'...

Stupid, stupid, stupid!

Corsica - wikipedia

Corsica is one of the 26 régions of France, although strictly speaking Corsica is designated as a "territorial collectivity" (collectivité territoriale) by law. As a territorial collectivity, it enjoys greater powers than other French régions, but for the most part its status is quite similar. Corsica is referred to as a "région" in common speech, and is almost always listed among the other régions of France. Although the island is separated from the continental mainland by the Ligurian Sea and is closer to Italy than to the French mainland, politically Corsica is part of Metropolitan France. It was once briefly an independent Corsican Republic, until being incorporated into France in 1769.

I was actually referring to this:
French Revolution 1789 - 1799

Why am I not surprised by your response?

Originally posted by nerbot

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by nerbot

 

Napoleon doesn't count... He was a Corsican... If he had been French... Well, I think that the white flag would have been used alot more... Just sayin'...

Stupid, stupid, stupid!

Corsica - wikipedia

Corsica is one of the 26 régions of France, although strictly speaking Corsica is designated as a "territorial collectivity" (collectivité territoriale) by law. As a territorial collectivity, it enjoys greater powers than other French régions, but for the most part its status is quite similar. Corsica is referred to as a "région" in common speech, and is almost always listed among the other régions of France. Although the island is separated from the continental mainland by the Ligurian Sea and is closer to Italy than to the French mainland, politically Corsica is part of Metropolitan France. It was once briefly an independent Corsican Republic, until being incorporated into France in 1769.

I was actually referring to this:
French Revolution 1789 - 1799

Why am I not surprised by your response?

i bet a good jack daniels botle that this guy in a world map
cant even find the usa xD

Originally posted by xaruto666
i bet a good jack daniels botle that this guy in a world map
cant even find the usa xD

No, I'm not American.

I would say stick it in the post but I don't drink that rubbish.

Why would I when the best drink in the world is made right on my doorstep......Cognac.

Anyway, let's get this back on topic....

The French courts have effectively ruled that there is nothing unequal about upholding the definition of marriage as between man and woman.

Sounds fine to me....I hate political correctness.

Marriage seems to have a religious tone to it. I see nothing wrong with allowing civil unions to be treated legally like marriage.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
It seems that the French court has recognised that marriage is a religious institution and the government has no business defining religious practices and that the civil union law they set up confers all the legal benefits of marriage to same sex couples.

Where did you get that? Religion isn't mentioned in the article.

I love these misleading titles. As if allowing same sex marriage would not "uphold traditional marriage". As if it would somehow change traditional marriage. BS

It makes sense to me, if they wanted the same legal benifits as married couples, they have them. What's the big fuss over the name?

Exactly. If it walks like a marriage and quacks like a marriage, why not call it marriage?

Originally posted by nerbot
I hate political correctness.

Politically Correct

conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

conforming to a belief that language and practices (like "gay marriage") which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated ...

When you think about the real meaning of politically correctness, it's simply being offended by something and thinking it should be disallowed BECAUSE of that offense. So, being offended by gay marriage and fighting for its demise is, in fact, a politically correct position. So, while you may hate political correctness, you seem to be embracing it.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I guess that part may have been just wishful thinking on my part. The court actually ruled that the current law against gay marriage is not unconstitutional, there is still a movement to legalize gay marriage in the country so the court never made mention of the state redefining a religious institution.

I'm pretty surprised that a law like that could have been passed in France in the first place. Like I said, I thought that they were way more progressive than the US and the fact that their high court upheld the law really surprised the hell out of me.

It makes me wonder if the Church has more pull in France than we have been lead to believe. I always thought of France as being very secular and anti-clerical so, when I learned that this law existed and was upheld by the courts, it made me wonder if my preconceptions about the French may be wrong.

Personally, I think they may have come up with the best compromise for this issue; they give gays all the legal and financial rights they have been fighting for while recognising the religious roots of the institution of marriage and respecting the sensibilities of Christians who view the gay lifestyle as contrary to the institution of marriage.

One should keep in mind that the Church defines the primary purpose of marriage as being for the procreation of children. I think that gays, unless they resort to some type of unnatural means, would be precluded from fulfilling this purpose of marriage and should be content to have gained the legal benefits of marriage for their unions.

Asking the state to redefine a religious institution should be offensive to those who hold to the theory of separation of Church and state. The state should stick to their areas of competence if they wish the Church to stick to theirs. When the state meddles in religious affairs, it is ludicrous to expect the Church to not get involved in politics, if only as a matter of defence.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Considering that the "squeaky political wheel that is Islam" is the second largest religion in France, one might consider that claiming any "oil" apllied in the form traditional interpretations of marriage is specifically an appeasement to the Church could be a bit of wishful thinking.

Originally posted by 23refugee
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

Considering that the "squeaky political wheel that is Islam" is the second largest religion in France, one might consider that claiming any "oil" apllied in the form traditional interpretations of marriage is specifically an appeasement to the Church could be a bit of wishful thinking.

Good point, Christians don't resort to chopping off people's heads when they don't get their way.


I often wonder why the gay rights crowd spends so much time fighting against Christianity, which is on the decline and is, for the most part, nonviolent while Islam is on the rise and Sharia law would condemn them to death if they were ever to take control.

Agreed. I've posted those exact sentiments dozens of times here.
I'll never understand championing an underdog that will eventually rip out your throat.

reply to post by xaruto666


In the Mediterranean, and since France exiled him there, they must not have considered it to be a true part of France, you cheese eatin' surrender monkey... (one good insult deserves another...)

reply to post by nerbot


My bad... It's been a few decades since my last history class... but even so, one could argue that in the French Revolution, France surrendered to itself... And I still stand by the Corsica stance... You can't be exiled from a country to a different part of the country...

Originally posted by FortAnthem
I thought that they were way more progressive than the US and the fact that their high court upheld the law really surprised the hell out of me.

Yeah, I don't know that much about France, so I'm not surprised at the ruling, but I didn't expect it, either.

Personally, I think they may have come up with the best compromise for this issue; they give gays all the legal and financial rights they have been fighting for while recognising the religious roots of the institution of marriage and respecting the sensibilities of Christians who view the gay lifestyle as contrary to the institution of marriage.

That would be fine except that there are many straight people who are married, but without any religious aspect to their lives or their marriage whatsoever. The above solution separates people based on the sexual orientation of the persons marrying. A better resolution, IMO, would be to separate unions into religious and secular. That way, the religious people could have their word (marriage) and have their weddings in churches, etc. and secular couples, like myself and many gay people, could have their marriage (or legal union, whatever you want to call it) at the Justice of the Peace, on the beach, in the woods or wherever. Churches would never be forced to marry a gay couple.

Only thing is, some churches would marry gay couples and that would piss off the Christians again.

One should keep in mind that the Church defines the primary purpose of marriage as being for the procreation of children. I think that gays, unless they resort to some type of unnatural means, would be precluded from fulfilling this purpose of marriage and should be content to have gained the legal benefits of marriage for their unions.

Many straight couples can't procreate. We couldn't have kids. So, according to this argument, we wouldn't be able to get married.

Asking the state to redefine a religious institution should be offensive to those who hold to the theory of separation of Church and state.

I would be all for getting the state out of marriage, but as it stands today, the state provides benefits to people who are married. The state issues a license and unless we follow the format, our marriage isn't legal and we can't receive those benefits. Marriage isn't a religious institution. Bear with me. Marriage is a legal contract. That's why you need a license, witnesses and a licensed person to perform the marriage, to be legally married, even if you do so in a church. You need to have the legal element there for it to be legal.

SOME people have a religious aspect to their marriage, but ALL people who marry have the legal aspect. So, marriage is a legal contract and some people choose to have a religious aspect.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Many straight couples can't procreate. We couldn't have kids. So, according to this argument, we wouldn't be able to get married.

The Church only requires that a couple be OPEN to the procreation of children. If they are physically incapable, that is not held against them. The Bible is full of stories of people who lived long, childless lives as a challenge to their faith. By holding strong to their faith, they were granted children late in life who became great figures in the faith. Ann and Joachim are an example; they are the parents of the Virgin Mary and they didn't conceive until very late in life.

BTW: I think the sunglasses on your avatar are a bit of overkill. She looked cuter without them.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
The Church only requires that a couple be OPEN to the procreation of children. If they are physically incapable, that is not held against them.

But that's exactly why you said the church wouldn't accept gay married people. Because they are unable and physically incapable of procreation. You said:

One should keep in mind that the Church defines the primary purpose of marriage as being for the procreation of children. I think that gays, unless they resort to some type of unnatural means, would be precluded from fulfilling this purpose of marriage and should be content to have gained the legal benefits of marriage for their unions.

The above paragraph applies to many straight couples (including me). And many straight couples do resort to unnatural means and successfully procreate. Sometimes they use another woman's egg or another man's sperm. or another person's body altogether (surrogate) or they adopt. Gay people can use the same "unnatural" means and successfully procreate.

The anti-gay marriage position of many has baffled me for a long time and I guess I'll just have to be patient and hope that some day soon, people won't care who else gets married.

BTW: I think the sunglasses on your avatar are a bit of overkill. She looked cuter without them.

They'll come off after V day. (And he's a HE - but a bit of a girly man...)