Friday, 1 February 2013

Gay 'marriage' - France debates

The UK is not the only European country in the midst of a national debate on gay 'marriage'. Hollande promised to bring legislation back before the National Assembly after it fell before the last elections. The parliamentary debate started on the 29th and was predicted to run through to mid-February, but opponents have tabled such a slew of amendments - over 5,000 to date - that Hollande's plans may be derailed. 

If Cameron's plans to permit gay weddings to go through and Hollande's don't, the UK may well end up hosting Gaston and Gaston as they tie the knot in a church service; country house hotels in Kent should not be slow to see the business opportunities here. 

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Now then R and...... which Kent Churches would those be?

We await the first test case, Yves'n'Guy V Christendom - the ECHR "works" much better, here in the UK than in France but it can be trumped and from a great height.

Robert said...

I am surprised that the French are having this problem because all marriages are state marriages. If you want a religious marriage you go to the Town Hall on the Friday and get married by the state. The 'real' marriage takes place later in the church of your choice. It is the same in quite a lot of EU countries.

Anonymous said...

Marriage is a sacriment; one of the seven sacriments. It can neither be legislated for, against, or indeed anything. Marriage is legislation proof in this resepct. Yes, you can have a gay wedding, but it's not marriage as stated in the sacriments. Politicians can huff and puff (sic) all they like but its a bit like King Canute and his waves.

Coney Island

Blue Eyes said...

Roll out the red carpet for the French couples?

Anyone know how gay marriage would fit with the (presumably this is how it works) reciprocal marriage recognition treaties?

For example what if a gay couple got married in England then tried to enforce their married rights in, say, India?

G. Tingey said...

Who cares?
IT DOES NOT MATTER
WHAT IS THE FUSS ABOUT?

Believers in non-existent undetectable BigSkyFairy [Insert $NAME here] can practise what they like inside their "temples" - no-one is forcing them to marry poofters if they don't want to!

Now, how about concentrating on serious matters, like corruption, Europe & the nations (lack of) defences?
Oh, and that ordering was deliberate, btw.

Le Frou Frou du Pumpernickle said...

Well, they won't need to bring their own buffet, can just chow down on some native horse burgers from Tesco - fantastique!

right_writes said...

As G Tingey says... more or less... One additional note... The word "marry" actually means "in deed", I remember reading the Compleat Angler, and wondering why our hero kept saying "marry!", so I looked it up.

It seems that this word was actually preferred to the word/s "in deed"... My guess is that the church mob stole it, and suddenly decided that it had some more serious meaning than "in deed"... Like it had some sort of religious significance...

It doesn't, it's a dry old word that was loved by legal beagles everywhere, and it basically means...

"civil partnership"...

another more modern "legal beagle" phrase...

So really what the churches and so-called conservatives are bleating about is that "poofs' shouldn't use "their" special words....

...We see a lot of this shit about, I mean the whole subject of "poofs" is one that is blanketed by all sorts of rules and regulations and other niceties... So it ill behoves our "gay" community to get uppity about the "marry" word, in the same way as the religious mobs are.

However, since the "gay" community have got away with it all these years, why the hell shouldn't we let the religious minorities...? Let them hijack this dusty old word...

...What the hell difference does it make?

People should grow up, but if they can't, maybe we should indulge them... As we have the "gay community" for years now.

...The other aspect of course is that some "gay" people believe that they are members of a particular church collective, even though the particular church perhaps jumped about trying to keep them out. If they are so religious, and they see that the church of their choice doesn't really want them there and certainly doesn't want them to marry there... might get the message and go off and form their own "church" or "private club" (another word for church).

Ian Hills said...

I wonder what counts as gay adultery and consumation?

DeeDee99 said...

"For example what if a gay couple got married in England then tried to enforce their married rights in, say, India?"

I wonder how they'd get on in Saudi Arabia?

The gay 'marriage' policy has been legislated for in the EU Parliament/Commission, to harmonise social policy across Europe. But it seems to have originated in the UN.

Cameron, Hollande etc are simply following Orders.

Wildgoose said...

This is just like feminism. Demand special privileges and then demand "equal" privileges on top.

So what happens to the "Civil Partnership" legislation that is not available to heterosexuals then?

It seems to me that the real reason why militant gays are demanding to be allowed to "marry" is so they can use this legislation in the future to attack the Church - which they have past form in doing.

Take Gay Adoption - something I supported, because loving parents (of whatever sexuality) are much better than the brutalisation we see in the State's "care". Having got the right to adopt at State Orphanages they then used the legislation to close down the Catholic Adoption Agencies.

They weren't interested in the children, they were interested in attacking the Church. I'm an Atheist (from a Protestant background) but this was blatant aggression and contrary to children's welfare. So quite simply, they are not to be trusted and Gay Marriage should be opposed.

A better solution of course would be to make "marriage" a civil contract taking place at the same time between any number of male and female partners that cannot be changed without dissolving the partnership. Homosexual, Heterosexual, Polygamous or for that matter non-sexual. Make the religious side a completely separate ceremony that is nothing to do with the state but instead all about forming a shared partnership of trust for life.

Anonymous said...

I am french and I can tell you the real debate there is not the gay marriage but the adoption. Most people agree to gay marriage. But I, like, many, am firmly against adoptions by gay people. I think it obviously better for a child to have a dad and a mum then 2 dads and 2 mums. Should we be in a war time were we had plenty of unadopted orphans, things might be different. But it is not the case at all! The next subject is medically assisted procreation and gift of gametes. Poor child that will not know his biological mum, will not be breastfed and hugged by a real mum and have two dads instead, it does not seem a good start in life at all.