French High Court Rejects Gay Marriage »
Posted by: STONERS 1 year, 5 months ago286 Comments Report this Story
France's highest court Tuesday rejected as unlawful the first marriage by a gay couple in France, annulling the union of the two men.
Read Full Story at news.aol.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 286
-
94%
STONERS1 year, 5 months ago
Stephane Charpin and Bertrand Charpentier were married in a civil ceremony on June 5, 2004, in Begles, a town in the southwest Bordeaux region. The government immediately said the union was outside the law, and a series of court decisions unfavorable to the couple followed.
In the latest decision, the court ruled that "under French law, marriage is a union between a man and a woman," backing a 2005 decision by an appeals court in Bordeaux.
Reply-
0%
STONERS1 year, 5 months ago
-
-
100%
krayzdrayzor1 year, 5 months ago
What scares me is that France came to the correct conclusion. It will fire a conspiracy theory for sure.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
david_nwpa1 year, 5 months ago
Who knows? Could be a neighborhood near you! Why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry?
Reply
-
-
100%
Sieben1 year, 5 months ago
Finally France did something right , America are you next ???????????
Reply -
-
0%
jaern1 year, 5 months ago
Agreed! Remember just a few short years ago when the majority cried out, "No Gay Civil Unions!!!" and then along came Gay Marriage. Now the majority cries out, "No Gay Marriage, they can have a civil union if they want, but don't call it marriage." We are making progress.
Reply
-
-
100%
mossback1 year, 5 months ago
This is wonderful -- if the most secular, anti-religious country in Western Europe is smart enough to realize that Gay Marriage isn't good for society there is hope for us here in the USA. This is a wonderful day for those of us who want civilization to continue!
Reply-
100%
hecuba1 year, 5 months ago
If Gay Marriqage is not good for French Society why does that country allow 'civil partnerships' which obstensively carry all the rights, privileges AND responsibilities of civil marriage?
It is sophmoric to refuse to call a marriage a marriage if they are legally the same thing....that is called discrimination.
By the way, given the heterosexual divorce rate and spousal abuse statistics....your team is doing a pretty good job of breaking down the society....without our help.
Reply-
100%
Gee35Coupe1 year, 5 months ago
And if "civil partnerships" carry the same rights and previledges, why do gay people want to force society to call it a marriage. The word "marriage" is for a man and a woman. That's just the way it is. A bunch of elephants is called a "herd" and a bunch of fish is a "school". Why can't gay people come up with some new term for it?
A homosexual relationship is not the same as a heterosexual one. So a legally recognised one should not be called a "marriage".
Reply -
100%
liberty1 year, 5 months ago
Pax in france, which many refer to civil marriage is not marriage at all. All that allows you is to file taxes with that someone, and be reconize as living in the same household, and having some type of relationship stronger then just friends as far as how much is spent for the household, paying bills...ect...
anyone can do it, brother and sister, mother and adult child, boyfriend and girlfriend...it is nothing that can even accidently be taking and compare to marrige for a frechman/woman. That is why this gay couple tried to change marriage law. This Paxing/civil marriage, comes only with financial/medical acknowledgement, and can be desolve at any time, and no romantic relationship is needed to form one. All you need is just 2 people willing to share financial responsabilty toward one another.
Even the most non-religious and anti-marriage french people that I have spoken to are against gay marriage, because they think it is a religious ceremony for their culture.
Reply -
0%
Linkgmr1 year, 5 months ago
It's not called discrimination. It's called a compromise. The religious people get to keep their special word, and the homosexuals get the rights, benefits, and privileges of a marriage. In the event that homosexuals are unwilling to compromise, the law can be left as is. (I.E. No marriage rights, privileges, or benefits for homosexuals)
Reply
-
-
-
95%
contrast1 year, 5 months ago
wow bit of a shock from Europe who some claim are "ahead" of America in social terms.
Reply -
100%
elll1 year, 5 months ago
yeah....even though they are human beings and work hard for what they have, they shouldn't have the same rights as EVERYONE else......lets treat them like they are some freak of nature sub human species.
I can't beleive how many people are still so ignorant about this. It's not about heterosexual rights, black rights, gay rights...blah blah blah...it's about HUMAN RIGHTS!!!!!!!!
Reply -
100%
thomas9981 year, 5 months ago
Lets be honest people, marriage is not a basic human right. Marriage is a construct of governments thats why you get the marriage certificates from the governments. That said the simple fact is any government has the right to deny any government contruct such as marriage as it sees fit. One might argue against governments that didn't allow gay folks to live together but that isn't the issue here, and claim the gay folks were being denied a basic human right of companionship but simply saying they cant have a piece of paper isnt a big deal.
Live with it. If a country was formed by a bunch of gay dudes and they didn't want to allow straight people to marry it wouldn't be a big deal either. Marriage means nothing more than what the people who are marriage believe it means, and a gay couple isn't going to be any happier or saddier simply because they don't have a piece of paper. If thier happiness depends on a certificat then they are pathetic.
Reply-
100%
faneo1 year, 5 months ago
thomas998
((Marriage means nothing more than what the people who are married believe it means..))
Well said.
Reply -
83%
david_nwpa1 year, 5 months ago
The "big deal" as you so put it is that the immense number of rights and responsibilities that are afforded married couples comes in a neat government package. Tax reductions for most people, inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, child custody decisions, adoption and parental rights, banking transactions, and several other legal issues are raised by marriage. Gays want to have the right to be able to marry the one person of their own choosing. Straight people have that option in that they choose someone of the opposite gender as that is their desire. Why should gays not have that same option?
Reply-
92%
thomas9981 year, 5 months ago
Lives not fair. If the gays want to change this maybe they should just focus on those benefits that married couples have. Lobby for tax breaks for people living together regardless of marrital status, I don't care.
And quite frankly, the rights you claim straight people have are just the same as the ones gay people have. As a straight guy I can't marry a gay guy either, and if you want you can marry a woman just like me, so quite frankly your not descriminated against. The fact that you want to marry a guy while I would rather marry a woman is just a fact. Maybe its genetic maybe its environmental I don't care. Just remember,just because your gay doesn't mean you can't get married. You just gotta play by the rules like the rest of us.
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
Solas1 year, 5 months ago
Oh, it doesn't matter much. Like everything else the laws choose to call "wrong", this will just add fuel to the fire, sparking more people to try it..You know..much like drugs, wrongful sexual relationships..Blah blah blah..Forbidden fruit...In the end, all of this will come around and kick everyone square in the ass.
Reply -
90%
elll1 year, 5 months ago
I see what you are saying, but.....
why have seperate rights? why should a heterosexual couple get government benefits and gay couples not? Do gay couples contribute differently, or not as much????
And obviously there ARE gay people that want to be married, otherwise it wouldn't be an issue.
right?
Reply-
100%
Gee35Coupe1 year, 5 months ago
Because gay couple are icky. Simply icky. And they are adnormal. I don't see how people can distort thier thinking to convince themselves that gay couples are "normal".
I have no problem with gay people as people as in day to day relationships. But the thought of heterosexual relationships strike me as wrong as bad singing on American Idol.
Reply
-
-
100%
johnozed1 year, 5 months ago
here are a few of the rights that gay people are missing, including being able to make medical decisions if a partner falls ill, visitation rights, and benefits from income tax for married couples, and also pension/benefits that could go to an opposite sex couple but not to a same sex. I know this doesn't mean much to heterosexuals since they've had these rights for years (and quite a bit didn't even know about it) but they do affect gay people everyday.
I do find it odd that the concept of heterosexual marriage is so threatened by enabling a group of people to share the same benefits and rights. Shaky ground indeed for heterosexuals I suppose.
It is not a religious issue, it is a civil issue.
Reply-
-
0%
Gee35Coupe1 year, 5 months ago
I'm heterosexual. And I am not religious. But I did get married. In a bar. And I still don't want gay people's union to share the same term "marriage" that defines the relationship I have with my wife.
Reply
-
-
0%
jumpmaster1 year, 5 months ago
johnozed,
You forgot a few.
Punitive child support, no visitation rights, exhorbitant spousal support, etc.
It is a two-edged sword. Be careful what you wish for. You can't pick and choose the parts you want when you are married. You get them ALL. With a civil/legal contract, a homosexual couple could do just that.
Reply
-
