Nearly 15,000 French Mayors Say They Will Refuse to Marry Gay Couples

It seems to me that there is a wee bit of resistance to French President Francois Hollande’s plans to legalize gay marriage.

First, the government re-scheduled the gay marriage vote to a different day. They were trying to avoid their own citizens’ protests against the vote. It seems that the previous marches with over a million participants got on their nerves.

I’ve seen videos and photos of the earlier marches. The marchers were moms and dads with their children, little old ladies and gray-haired priests. Their sheer numbers were impressive. But it’s even more impressive that they looked like the kind of people who form the backbone of a country. If the government is afraid of them, then it is afraid of its own middle class.

Ditto, or maybe double ditto, for the mayors. The Association of Mayors for Children has announced that, if this law passes, its 14,900 members will refuse to perform gay marriages.

I don’t want to rush to judgement here, but it’s beginning to look like the French government is running over its people with this vote. Let’s look at the situation. We have a national government that is moving votes around because it is so overwhelmed by citizen marchers against an issue. We also have a large number of local officials — people who are part of the government — flat-out saying that they will not abide by the law if it passes. Is the French government strong-arming its people with this law? It sounds that way.

I think that duly elected officials who have even half a brain would take note of this much resistance from the electorate. But then I’m assuming that these duly elected officials have half a brain. Maybe they don’t. Maybe they checked their brains to their party when they ran for office and don’t remember where they left them. I can’t think of any other reason for forcing a law this divisive on an aroused citizenry.

I am well aware that the com boxes on this blog are going to fill up with comments trying to equate gay marriage to human slavery and miscegenation, but those analogies don’t hold up. I realize why they do this. It’s because there really isn’t some innate right to gay marriage. They’re forced to link their cause to some other cause to give it legitimacy. It doesn’t stand on its own.

The reason there isn’t an innate right to gay marriage is because the concept itself is something of an oxymoron. Gay people have sex with one another and fall in love with one another. But theirs is a sterile union. For that simple reason, it serves no larger purpose to the overall society to call their pairing “marriage.”

Marriage between a man and a woman, by its very nature, produces other human beings. Marriage is the institution by which we nurture and raise our young to become stable and productive citizens who can nurture and raise the next generation after them. 

The pitiful mess that heterosexuals have made of marriage these past few decades doesn’t negate that. It underscores it. Look at the messed up kids our messed up marriages are producing. We have degraded family and home life to the point that we have raised a generation of young people who appear to be unable to bond to form marriages and raise children of their own. They have never known a stable home and because of that, they can not create one for themselves.

This doesn’t mean that marriage is unimportant. It shows how drastically important it is. Nothing can replace it.

Degrading marriage further will only shove us further along in our cycle of social and cultural self-destruction.

The French people seem to understand this a lot better than the rest of the Western world. They understand that children matter. 

They are trying their best to tell this to their government. Meanwhile, the government appears to have put stoppers in its ears so that it won’t have to listen. I would not be surprised if the French find themselves subjected to another lecture like that the New Zealand statesman du jour delivered to his constituents, explaining to them what an ignorant and bigoted bunch of backward hayseeds they are for thinking for themselves instead of seeing things the way their government wants them to.

It’s a mistake when elected officials start to assume that people stupid enough to elect them must be complete idiots. There is every possibility that they will discover that their election was just a momentary lapse in judgement.

From CNA:

.- A group of at least 14,900 French mayors has said it will not perform “gay marriages,” even if the government moves ahead with plans to legalize the practice.

The administration of French President Francois Hollande has put forth a measure that would legalize “gay marriage,” allow gay couples to receive medical treatment for artificial procreation and to adopt children.

“It is foolish to think that the mobilization of the elected mayors would stop if the law is passed,” said Franck Meyer, spokesman for the association Mayors for Children.

“As citizens, we elected officials will not give up,” he emphasized in statements to the media.

Meyer, who is mayor of Sotteville-sous-le-Val in northern France, observed that some of the mayors in the group have said they “would resign if the law is adopted,” while others “have said they will refuse” to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

On April 12, the French Senate passed the measure sponsored by President Hollande, but it has yet to go before the French National Assembly. (Read the rest here.)

Apple Watch Review: Do NOT Buy
Cyber War Can Be Real War.
Planned Parenthood: Providing Forced Abortions to Sex Traffickers
Killing Grandma to Kiss the Zeitgeist.
  • FW Ken

    It seems to me that same-sex marriage is simply an extension of the mess we’ve made of heterosexual marriage. And it’s all part of the rising tide of materialism in which a prosperous (cultural) west had been marinating for nearly two generations now.

    • Neil Cameron

      Not exactly an extension of the mess of heterosexual marriage.
      As a gay man living in New Zealand I am entitled to marry my partner. As a citizen of another country the situation becomes more complex.
      Should the marriage descend to the chaos of divorce, the courts would be forced to consider both New Zealand marriage law, as well as the marriage law of the country of my citizenship. Because my country of citizenship does not recognize gay marriage, the laws of that country stipulate that no marriage exists. If no marriage exists, no divorce can be issued. No court of law, regardless of whether it is here in New Zealand or in the country of my citizenship, can issue a divorce.
      My gay marriage therefore has the strongest legal ties possible for marriage. So no, I disagree strongly with your belief that it is an extension of the mess. The messy part has been blocked off to me and my husband.

  • pagansister

    How is it that “we” have messed up heterosexual marriage? Those that have messed it up are the couples themselves? Who is “we”? IMO, there have always been messed up marriages and children (if there were children) have paid the price for centuries. Messed up heterosexual marriages are nothing new—-they are just brought to the surface more now. How many couples stayed together in very unhappy marriages “for the kids” when to split would have been much better? Kids know when their parents fight, and don’t like each other. As to gay marriage in France or else where? How is it that they will mess up anymore than heterosexual unions? Since they can’t reproduce without help—having a child wouldn’t be an accident as some are in heterosexual couples, because adopting or using a surrogate takes planning. The above is the French being French. :-)

    • Guest

      Society, we, doomed marriage by insisting on and accepting no-fault divorce laws. Even in ‘bad’ marriages people found a way to live together when divorce wasn’t such an easy option. There was far less trauma suffered by children who knew mom and dad stayed together largely because they loved them even when they didn’t love each other. Far less trauma than what they suffer by splitting up and creating step families.

      There was also less domestic violence than there is now, even when people are free to leave. The number one person most likely to physically and sexually abuse a child is the mother’s live-in boyfriend – a problem virtually non-existent outside of the lowest economic levels (where marriage was less common) before 1960s in America and common as grass now in all socioeconomic strata.

  • Zeke

    Oh the irony Rebecca. Last week you laid the blame on Obama and defended US politicians who ignored the overwhelming majority of citizens supporting expanded background checks for purchasing guns. This week you celebrate French mayors also ignoring the opinions of the general population, the majority of whom support the measure to legalize same sex marriage. Yet you are eager to cite any polls on abortion when they show a majority are pro-life.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I’ll try to answer this quickly.

      I think you misunderstood my point about Obama and the gun control vote. That vote, to the extent that it was based on the the individual senators voting as their constituents in their districts wished, certainly was a vote that followed the wishes of the people — in this case the people those senators were charged with representing. Your assertions are based on national polls, which may or may not reflect the wishes of voters in specific districts. That is the genius of the federalist system, it protects minorities from being run over by majorities and vice versa.

      I would guess that there are sections of France in which people support gay marriage. However, this kind of popular resistance is certainly indicative of large sections in which they do not. Since France governs through a parliamentary system and I don’t know much about that, I’m somewhat guessing, but it appears that these elected officials are ignoring the wishes of a large part of the electorate, including other government officials in pushing through gay marriage. This is dangerous business for any government.

      As for polls about pro life, I don’t remember if I’ve cited them or not. I frankly don’t much care what polls say about abortion/euthanasia and other forms of legalized murder. I am opposed to killing innocent people.

  • Manny

    Who would have ever thought the French would be the leading resistence to SSM? I sure didn’t. We need to moblize and protest here in the US right away before the politicians shove it down our throats. We need to send the same message.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I agree.

    • pagansister

      Manny, the families from Newtown and other shootings tried to tell our government about enacting laws for at least background checks for buyers, in places such as gun shows. Look how far that got! Do you really think the government will listen to protesters on SSM? No one gets killed in SSM. Personally I hope that it is granted in this country, either by Washington or perhaps all the states will finally figure out people have rights. The French will be fine.

  • Bill S

    “It’s because there really isn’t some innate right to gay marriage.”

    Who says? Who is the judge of whether or not gays have a right to marry? It would appear that they do, no matter how many people speak out against it.

    • CathyLouise

      Bill S., I don’t understand…why does it appear that they do? Because they say they want to marry? What is marriage? Sometimes I think when Christians, particularly Catholics for whom marriage is a a sacrament, engage in discussions about “gay marriage” the two sides are using the same words but they have very different definitions. This causes all kinds of problems. Until very recently “marriage” meant something much closer to what Catholics meant than what is being pushed by the proponents of gay marriage.

      • Bill S

        No one is doing anything to affect Catholic marriage. If people want to marry, they can marry. Who am I or you or anyone else to say that they can’t? This shouldn’t even be an issue to Catholics since they have their sacramental marriage that no one is trying to change. What people who don’t follow the teachings of the Catholic Church or maybe any other Christian denomination or Islam do should be of no concern to Catholics, other Christians or Muslims.

        • CathyLouise

          So, Bill S., what do you mean when you say the word “marriage.” What is it’s definition, and what is the goal?

          • Bill S

            I’m not the one to ask. You really have to ask the person getting married. You know, the one who you are trying to tell can only marry someone of the opposite sex even though it is not your call.

            • Rebecca Hamilton

              Actually Bill this whole debate is based on the fact that it is someone’s “call.” You are confusing marriage as a legal entity with affection and emotional bonding, which can be anything from a mother and child to me and my cat.

            • Guest

              Laws aren’t something each person gets to define for themselves. It’s society’s ‘call’ to define them for everyone a law impacts.

              The reason gay marriage and similarly no-fault divorce harm my marriage is because they impact (negatively) the very form and function of what marriage has always been and that has a detrimental effect especially on children but also the larger society I have to live in. Relativism would seek to dismiss any harm done to the larger society to defend an individual’s right to do whatever they want. Except the whatever-they-want is almost always limited to sexual issues. You don’t see relativists out promoting the right to steal or be dishonest, etc. even when the ‘harm’ to another may be extremely remote.

            • Dave

              Wait, so marriage can mean whatever the people wanting to get married think it means? Well, then, there is no reason to limit it at all to 2 people, much less to 2 people of the opposite sex.

            • CathyLouise

              Bill, just to say if people want to get married they have a right to call their union a marriage is not definition nor an argument. There must be a definition that means something, to you and to other people, or no one would care if a gay marriage was recognized as a marriage by society as a whole. If words have no common meaning then, well, they are meaningless and chaos will result. So what is the meaning of the word “marriage.”

              • Bill S

                Marriage is the commitment of two people to one another. To you, those two people must be of the opposite sex, to me they do not have to be. Where marriage affects two people, and where it is none of your business or mine, is in things like the joint ownership of property, family benefits, tax definitions, etc. I still don’t understand how people not involved in someone’s marriage can have any say over its validity. It boggles the mind.

                • Rebecca Hamilton

                  All these things you list can easily be addressed without changing the definition of the basic institution of Western society, Bill.

                • SteveP

                  You are wrong: it is my business if it involves the public purse. You still have not made the case as to why I ought to reimburse the tax paid on Edith Windsor’s “partner’s” estate.

                • CathyLouise

                  Any two people Bill? What about a mother and a son? An uncle and a nephew? A brother and a sister? Can they be married? Why limit it to two people? Should it be limited to two people? If it’s just a matter of gosh, they love each other and want to have sex and be comitted to each other do they need to have a word attached to it. The needs of and the good to children of marriage and to society as a whole is not considered in your description. It’s financial, and that can be taken care of another way.

  • SteveP

    Good for those mayors! I hope all the world follows suite!