One of the consequences of the endemic spread of gay-marriage in western nations is all the people being dragged into participation in the process. Gay marirage in most cases does not just mean the right of the couple to get married, but the requirement that a number of other people may be compelled to participate.
In France that means town officials, who can conduct weddings, cannot opt out of performing a ceremony on the grounds that doing so would infringe upon their freedom of conscience. In most cases so far deputies have covered for objecting Mayor’s but the threat of a 5-year prison sentence hangs over those that defy the government of Francois Hollande.
Back in June a mayor in South West France, Jean-Michel Colo, did refuse to conduct a same-sex wedding and is already facing the possibility of jail and a fine. Under French law, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation can be punishable by up to half a decade in prison and up to a 75 thousand Euro fine. (about $105,000)
Gay-marriage in France became legal in May this year despite massive protests, and with the legislation escaping fierce parliamentary debate and surviving legal challenges. Public opinion surveys suggest that about 50% of the nation opposes same-sex nuptials.
According to the BBC a group of mayors had challenged a law recognising same-sex marriage that took effect in May. The Constitutional Council rejected their argument that the law infringed their freedom of conscience. In a five-page ruling, the Constitutional Court said it was not unconstitutional for public officials to be required to officiate at same-sex marriages regardless of any personal objections.
The court stated that the legislation did not include an opt-out clause for officials “to assure the law is applied by its agents and to guarantee the proper functioning and neutrality of public service," and that subsequently "Freedom of conscience is not violated by officiating at weddings."
What’s interesting here is that the court interprets why the legislature wrote the law the way it did. In fact the position of the court was to judge the legislation for constitutional violations, instead they directed the plaintiffs to understand what the law expected to accomplish. Unlike American courts that are too often guilty of legislating from the bench, the French Constitutional Court has appointed itself executive, emphasizing how the law will be applied.
French governmental sub-divisions have created 36,000 communes, about 1 for every 2000 people, which is the lowest level of government with each headed by a Mayor and a municipal council. Mayor Franck Meyer claims to represent 15,000 of the Mayors that are opposed to the new requirements and heads the association Mayors for Children that is also opposing gay-adoption and state paid medical treatment for artificial procreation
Meyer, the Mayor of Sotteville-sous-le-Val in northern France said back in April “It is foolish to think that the mobilization of the elected mayors would stop if the law is passed, As citizens, we elected officials will not give up,”
Following the court ruling Meyer said they would take their case to the European Court of Human Rights "because we are local elected representatives and we have a right to express the diversity of opinion in French society".
According to the Catholic News Agency Nathalie de Williencourt, a French lesbian and founder of one of the largest homosexual associations in France, said in January that most homosexual individuals in the country do not want “gay marriage” or the right to adopt children.
de Williencourt was quoted as saying “I am French, I am homosexual. The majority of homosexuals do not want either marriage or adoption, and we especially don’t want to be treated the same as heterosexuals because we are different. We don’t want equality but we do want justice.” But regardless of her feelings what matters is what the political lobby wants.
Recent British legislation is headed toward causing similar problems in England and Wales. Marriage registrars with a conscientious objection will not be able to refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies with the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s legal advice on the gay marriage legislation saying, “registrars who are employed to deliver a public function may (can) be required to solemnise same-sex marriages”.
Some, including a legal opinion, have concluded that teachers and others could be forced out of their jobs if they fail to endorse such unions, to which the Coalition for Marriage said: “The redefinition of marriage would ride roughshod over a person’s right to support marriage as the exclusive union between one man and one woman, whether that person be a teacher, a parent, a foster carer or a marriage registrar.”
The advocates of gay-marriage though are pushing forward like a freight train. It is clear that their agenda is not simply limited to obtaining their stated aim, but also in forcing everybody else to go along with it with a smile. Failure to do so will bring about the invocation of increasingly severe penalties. Tolerance is the last thing on these people’s minds!
