Ok the usual disclaimer applies!

No kidding... U'll love that http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/music-video-avinu-malkeinu-our-father-our-king
No offense to anyone but I went haven't I always done so? How dare you? (keep my best words for you) By the way.... You have been the longest around, what can you tell me of the need for so many to have that load of complementary rules, guidelines and thousands of sacred pages to read and live by when according to all reports, clearly the wording of the Ten Commandments has proved to be far too sophisticated given the widespread level of understanding?

So what? Did u get hold of a dictionary? ok. Don't think so, the guy is alright I guess, he's just shocked but make mistakes when expressing his distress. Will try to find it I read in Dissent but a while ago a rather interesting piece supporting the pros but even so, think a lady signed it she had to make her point to start by defining Marriage and its content and there we go the problem is Marriage is defined (Malachi) and so is its objectives and content while there is a brilliant book on Ten Commandments its influence on American Law which can be extended to the west in general so the idea that Marriage can be revisited and redefined just like a driving licence isn't just insane, it is stupid. But look I mean have you read it?

Denbora pasa, kezkak ahaztu dut haurra berri eman ?

No, I disagree with that since whether u r a radical from the left, the right, the bottom or the top if u take any initiative that leads to violence in a public place with all the risks there are for bystanders, u should be prosecuted to the full extent of the Law. Don't know for France but what is prosecuted isn't the radical side u belong to, the Law doesn't classify that kind of stuff, would be unconstitutional. What is prosecuted and should be is the initiative that results in violence exposing bystanders.
Why anyway?

Look at Euskadi,

Zure sabela azalaren azpian luzatu nire eskua sentitu zuen bere jaurtiketa (nire eskua zure sabelean bere jaurtiketak sentitzen saiatzen ari da, can u check?), nire belarrian jarri zure sabela bere zarata egunero ikusten (nire zure sabela on belarrian zarata egiten zuen egunero entzuten), nire begiak itxi ditut eta kezka ahaztu bizitza honetan gaur agindu ( begiak itxi ditut, denbora pasa ahaztu kezkak buruzko datozen haurtxoa honen inspirazio iturri izan dit), egoistically espero etorkizunerako promesa berri bat eskatu zuen, bere ondoren bere tenpluan, esku gisa sufriarazten egingo da. Ez eskubidea dut?
(?Begiak itxi ditut, denbora dut ahaztu pasa kezkatzen datozen bizitza honetan inspiratu izan dit, gaur egun zain etorkizun berritua bere oinazeak izango too zuen ondoren bere eskuekin sentitu tenpluan jaurtiketak egiteko.?)
May be it is better to say it with these words after the grammar is corrected (sorry) rather than using the neighbor's pick example to have kids. But no offense, just suggesting words trying to light up a difficult issue.

Don't know, should it be made mandatory prior to the ceremonies, Begitara Begira?
or here photos are great
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ8Cm72zNRM&feature=share&list=RD02i1yBZh4Gbw0

You have made your point by now. If these two guys have truly offered their union takes place at their home meaning they understand the sacred character of the Land, that Euskadi's Land is its People Temple and the very special character of the Nation hosting them,  there must be someone strong enough with the support of everyone among the entire team the People elected to make sure a foreign law to the Land doesn't lead to the loss of its leaders. If they have chosen you, elected you, they need you and they want you to stay out of trouble to keep the good work you do for the city going. Think you should find someone able to deal with the situation, strong enough to know that while complying with a foreign law imposed by force on Euskadi, the heart and soul of the Nation flies above, your eyes will speak when your tongue is sewed.

French politics and the shameful exploitation of WW2 history for today's political agenda has now lead clearly to the death of a young student engaged into a radical "antifascism" organisation after a fight with another group of youths eventually engaged in a radical organisation on the opposite side which coulsd be "skin heads". Looks like a joke that it is at the heart of the political debate as well as making the headlines when you know that all together these groups of radicals of both sides make less than 1% at any general elections... 

More surprising is the reaction of mainstream politicians, medias and usual analysts of underground culture. It is funny that there is nobody to wonder what was doing a bright student that had succeeded at the competition to enter among the most prestigious schools which is in this case Science Politique Paris into the subculture of antifascism radicals engaged in several violent demonstrations known to breach repeatedly public order and whose methods have little to do with democracy not to mention that their political aim looks to be, fighting with all their energy, time and abilities something "fascism" which hardly scores more than 1% at general elections, the Gov and Press naming these "fascist" organisations "groupuscules" or " micro groupes" both expressions underlining with contempt their very little size by the number of affiliates with in mind that given the event that took place, we learn that members of these subcultures groups can't even shop without being insulted....is it designed to convince them they are heading the wrong way? In itself isn't all that a little disturbing? It is.

Have u looked at it?

More disturbing for the Rule of Law in general is the suspected decision to only prosecute one side. Given it was a street fight in which two groups engaged scoring one dead in the heart of a very busy shopping street every single one engaged in that fight should be prosecuted may be not charged with the same counts but no one should think it is possible to get away with breaching public order and engaged in street fighting endangering the life of others, what if in the way of any of these guys during the fight a toddler had escaped his Mum surveillance and find himself in the middle of it?

But what stays with me, is whether the dead guy or the suspected individual now jailed with a couple of others, why are they into these subcultures. Of course there is for everyone the personal responsibility, the choice you make for yourself and the consequences you must bear but nonetheless you can't take away both have filled the emptiness of one's life and may be answered a spiritual struggle with the wrong answers. Of these two guys, given where they grew up and their background very little not to say none should have lead them where they ended, so, it leaves the recurring shameful use of WW2 history in today's politics associated with the lack of care for the National Minorities for one and another troubling side of French politics for the other being how it deals with the culture and identity of people of Immigrant descent...?

I guess the French Gov will get away with that death again but there is a stain at the heart of Europe that doesn't play by the rule when it comes to the protection owned to persons that belong to National Minorities. Any honest political step to end insane subcultures whether it is irrational fight against the pro-nazis ghosts of WW2 or surprising taste for answers to a personal identity and spiritual struggle in political nationalism military style revolution lays for a great number through the knowledge of their rights and who they really are.

A good starting point is to read the FCNM, the French state hasn't signed yet but it is something that can be changed 

"extract : Résolus à protéger l’existence des minorités nationales sur leur territoire respectif;

Considérant que les bouleversements de l’histoire européenne ont montré que la protection des 

minorités nationales est essentielle à la stabilité, à la sécurité démocratique et à la paix du 

continent;

Considérant qu’une société pluraliste et véritablement démocratique doit non seulement 

respecter l’identité ethnique, culturelle, linguistique et religieuse de toute personne appartenant à 

une minorité nationale, mais également créer des conditions propres à permettre d’exprimer, de 

préserver et de développer cette identité;
.../...
Article 1
La protection des minorités nationales et des droits et libertés des personnes 
appartenant à ces minorités fait partie intégrante de la protection internationale 
des droits de l’homme et, comme telle, constitue un domaine de la coopération 
internationale"
.../...
Article 3
1 Toute personne appartenant à une minorité nationale a le droit de choisir 
librement d’être traitée ou ne pas être traitée comme telle et aucun désavantage 
ne doit résulter de ce choix ou de l’exercice des droits qui y sont liés."

The French version of the convention is here 

Conseil de l'Europe 

CONVENTION-CADRE POUR LA PROTECTION DES MINORITÉS NATIONALES ET RAPPORT EXPLICATIF

Anybody suspecting a link between the death of that student and me mentioning again the FCNM on that occasion would be right. I do believe a number of distressed or disaffected individuals that enter subcultures (fighting WW2 ghosts in today's politics is one of them) by ignoring that their struggle is much more widely shared than what they think, there are answers and these answers are in the FCNM for a score of them.

Since it is in French they might read it who knows? up  to?

Hopefully, the prosecutor in charge of the investigation will soon speak out as it has been recently the case for some similar incidents that hit the headlines before someone else get hurt while too many mainstream politicians instead of appealing for calm and responsibility look to be more interested by the useful sides for their own agenda whatever it may be.

The fact that it may appear that there are circumstances under which jumping to conclusions before the investigation even starts is alright and other circumstances under which people are urged to not draw conclusions can and will only proved to be counterproductive, reinforcing the sentiment the authorities are sided feeding distrust.

Heated political debate cannot and should not lead to threats and confrontation, it is surprising to not see all mainstream politicians remind everyone that the full force of the Law will apply to anyone engaged in making threats or intimidations, breaching public order orand appealing publicly to commit these offenses regardless of their motives or to who it is directed at... while waiting for the results of the investigation of the events that lead to a tragic end and from there take all the necessary legal steps to improve the legislation or the knowledge of the existing legislation to prevent another drama.

No I haven't but I thought of that. How did you respond to it? I did under these terms what if the word Marriage is hijacked and misused or abused, does it change anything? And I came up with the idea that there isn't anything wrong really for someone to say he's or she's married even if it is under a state assisted union and therefore not truly married since under the consensus we all can agree, before the Law equality in matters such as estate, taxes and other legal issues has lead to a similar legal situation when compared to a truly married individual. And when start the offense and is there any?
I reached the conclusion there isn't any or a possibility of any. First Amend answers and a truly married before God person can surely stand the little arrangement with the truth of someone that has made a choice often difficult and essentially guided by legal issues rather than the greatness of the Ketubah.

Well think they have a good chance of seeing the end of religious marriage discrimination on a legal basis now will they be smart enough to take the stand of a reconciliation based on it, that remain to be seen. How plays out the lack of understanding of the tyranny of the majority and its consequences on social cohesion and why the consensus culture has played such an extraordinary role in building a strong society giving the best of itself haven't got through their thinking yet...  something which in this case works both ways, no despair it might. The recurring difficulty in dealing with the freedom of choice, a vital thing in democracy but you know it is also a matter of culture.
The choice to have a religious marriage only, a religious marriage and a state assisted ceremony or a state assisted only union looks a natural thing, just so obvious that of course it is the way to go and to be honest a little reserve when thinking but should the state be involved at all in that business...? But well, yes definitely the right choice to offer the citizenry today. But the French "leaders" have always had it looks a problem with the Free Choice society. Why? Not sure.
What have you got?

Think I got it right .... Finally... Marriage is a religious institution, there isn't any possible or legitimate doubt about it. Civil Union was established at Citizen request to let couples that didn't wish to marry to be equal before the Law regarding a wide range of legal issues running from estate, taxes, child custody and more, the State ended in charge of the ceremony.

I came across a demonstration and saw a sign a lady had that said I surely did not ask her to civil union me, have I? And I thought well yes Mam I guess you did....? Why would you want anything else knowing that you wouldn't marry her since you do not believe in God?

In Malachi 2:14 we see that marriage is a holy covenant before God. God's people signed a written agreement at the time of the marriage to seal the covenant. The marriage ceremony, therefore, is meant to be a public demonstration of a couple's commitment to a covenant relationship. It's not the "ceremony" that's important in a marriage, it's the couple's covenant commitment before God and men.

There we are. From a wide range of legal issues that same sex couples are facing and that required to be solved a piece of legislation, we end up with an inflammatory debate too often ugly because some people think it is smart to provoke the religious crowds that are, and whether you think they are right or wrong doesn't matter, very conservative about the Marriage.

What good there can be about calling a Marriage something that isn't one exclusively designed to solve legal issues of people that do not believe anyway? Will it make them look more acceptable to anyone? I don't think it will. 

French stuff actually... They haven't tried to find the largest consensus and probably some culture dimension there, they never do despite that given the political system sheltering the proposed legislation, the majority in both chambers certain the project would be adopted they could have but....

Equality for marriages or state assisted civil unions offers a good deal of reconciliation given that anyway there isn't legally a bright future for the mandatory appearance at a city hall show to access the married couple rights for a member state of the European Union.

Since Turkey share with France very little taste for National Minority rights, do you know if they have the same kind of stuff?

It is both to me. Why do you make that distinction anyway? It is a legal as well as moral matter. Would say that there isn't much to argue about the legal issue of discriminating religious marriage verses civil union, it is the case and not much more over the fact that there can't be any legitimacy today as an EU member state in subordinating the access to married couple rights to an appearance at a phony city hall show for a religiously married couple.
Now the moral side of it lays into the need to be coherent when you face a fierce opposition on a legislation. To be heard on the before the law equality for all couples asking the assistance of the state to celebrate their union, while facing a clear divide and a number of controversies about the project, there can't be two standards, one for religious couple seeking the assistance of a Church to act their union that do not open the door to the married couple rights and one for those seeking the assistance of the state. To be heard on the Equality before the Law it needs to be true regardless of the couple's beliefs and choice of who's the couple seeks assistance to celebrate their union.

It doesn't either. It doesn't implicate any change in the registration process. The married couple just give an original of the Church certificate to the city hall and the registration takes place, you avoid all the pain as well as undue costs for the taxpayer and reduce unnecessary queues of couples some days.

what makes you think that? It doesn't fly... Take an example, I mean you have two couples living in Paris that are good friends and have decided to get married the same day, one couple is made of two British nationals and the other couple is French, they have rented a nice castle in the French country side where they planned to have a lavish party with their numerous friends and family. The British couple know a very nice Church in the country side in England and they know the Priest there and have made all the arrangements so the two couples can marry the same day, only close family will travel for the ceremony at the Church. Alright. When they come back in the eurostar with the Church document, the French state will one couple is married and the other isn't....? Based on what? their citizenship?, in one instance they will the British couple is married and because the French couple only married at the Church they will tell them that they aren't married, well that doesn't fly with the EU laws.... Both couples are married and where and who did the celebration cannot be used to discriminate one couple regarding their status under French laws. So what we have right now is if an English Priest marry a French couple in an English Church they are married for the French state but if the same couple is married by a French Priest in a French Church('d be the same with a Rav) the French state says they aren't married....
So I think they have a point. It can hold for very long given the French state cannot argue within the European Union that a marriage isn't a marriage for the law because it was only a religious marriage, therefore discriminate  religious marriages based on the citizenship of the Priest or the geographical location of the Church (regardless of the obedience) is to me against the European rules and impose to married couple a fake ceremony at a city hall celebrated by some politician to access rights reserved to married couples can't last much longer....

French opponents to the Gay civil union may enter a new battle challenging the French state zealots on equality for all marriages. What are the odds of winning this battle after loosing the battle against the same sex town hall marriage?

Pretty good according to the French conservatives legal activists stating that the continuing discrimination of religious marriages will not now resist much longer given the Gov arguments to push the agenda of town hall same sex marriage. If there was some legitimacy in arguing that equality of rights before the law for gay couples and hetero sexual couples should be respected, it looks difficult to pretend that the same equality should not apply to couple regardless of where they got married at the church or in a town hall. Equality for all marriages looks to be the new slogan...

On the legal side, clearly the discrimination the french state applies to religious marriages with the exception of religious marriages celebrated out of a French religious institution may be short lived now.

Update 2

1. CCTV footage shows bearded man apparently praying shortly ...
2. English Defence League march through London English Defence League supporters have marched through central London chanting 'Muslim killers off our streets' in the wake of soldier Lee Rigby's death…

3. French anti-terrorism police hunt man who stabbed soldier 

   French anti-terrorism investigators are hunting for a bearded man who was reported to have been praying before he stabbed a French soldier