A small French town finds itself in an unprecedented situation: its mayor and the entire municipal council have resigned in protest because they refuse to celebrate the marriage of one of the town’s inhabitants, who has been ordered to leave French territory. The law requires them to proceed with performing the wedding of this individual—who is present in the country in violation of French law. Faced with an increase in this type of absurd situation, members of parliament are attempting to change the legislative framework, so far without success.
On Saturday, December 13th, in Chessy, a small town about 40 kilometres east of Paris, the entire municipal team—the mayor and all his deputies—resigned because they all, without exception, refused to perform the wedding of a man under OQTF (obligation de quitter le territoire français, or deportation order). They suspected the man of having fraudulent and insincere intentions. The man admitted that he was more interested in regularising his status than in marriage—what is commonly referred to as a marriage of convenience, or mariage blanc in French.
At the higher administrative level, the prosecutor has a different version of events and believes that there is no reason to doubt the intentions of the groom-to-be. He explains that he has opted for “conciliation”—another name for laxity in the present situation. Furthermore, the OQTF is no longer valid due to administrative delays, rendering the mayor’s opposition null and void.
The couple had been notified of the mayor’s refusal to perform the wedding several months ago. The groom-to-be then launched administrative proceedings to win his case. The judgement was handed down on December 10th, and the registrar was ordered to proceed with the marriage because he could not “without exceeding his powers, validly substitute his own assessment for the decision of non-opposition issued by the public prosecutor’s office after the investigation.” Refusing to bow to this pressure, the mayor and his team chose to resign rather than go against their deeply held convictions.
The prefecture refused to accept the resignation of the mayor and his team, as this would place the municipality in an unprecedented administrative situation: the mayor and his deputies would now be nothing more than ordinary municipal councillors.
Many voices on the Right spoke out in defence of the Chessy mayor’s decision, including members of Les Républicains (LR) and the Union des Droites pour la République (UDR), an ally of the Rassemblement National (RN). “This is madness,” exclaimed Valérie Pécresse, president of the Île-de-France region and former centre-right candidate in the 2022 presidential election.
This is not the first time such a case has arisen in France. In February, the Senate by a comfortable majority passed a bill presented by centrist senator Stéphane Demilly, intended to allow mayors to refuse to perform weddings when one of the future spouses lacks legal immigration status or is subject to a deportation order. The bill was inspired by the case of Hautmont mayor Stéphane Wilmotte, who in 2023 faced ineligibility and damages after refusing to marry a former mosque president whose mosque had been closed for hate speech and advocacy of armed jihad, and who was under an order to leave the country. It was also shaped by the stand taken by Béziers’ conservative mayor Robert Ménard, who said he was willing to risk prison after refusing to officiate the wedding of a man subject to a similar removal order (OQTF).
Although supported by Emmanuel Macron, adopted by the Senate, and discussed in commission by the MPs, the bill has still not been placed on the National Assembly’s final agenda, sparking anger among representatives of the upper house. “73% of French people were in favour of my bill. But despite this, we are still waiting. It’s enough to make you feel disgusted with the situation. One wonders what purpose we serve,” says Senator Demilly, who denies any “xenophobia” but wants above all to “ensure that the law is respected.”
Opposed to the Demilly bill, the Left, in this case, paradoxically finds itself defending at all costs the dignity of marriage, ‘a fundamental human right,’ which must override any other consideration regarding the immigration status or potential illegality of one or both spouses. For now, the problem remains unresolved.
