115 French Legislators: Children Have "Fundamental Right" to be Raised by Mother and Father



The number of French parliamentarians that have added their names to a list of those opposing homosexual “marriage” and adoption has now reached 115, according to the French magazine Liberation.

The petition was begun in response to a new initiative by French socialists, who are promising voters to institute homosexual “marriage” if they are chosen in the upcoming presidential elections.

The parliamentarians in opposition come from the three political parties that make up the coalition supporting President Nicolas Sarkozy: the Union for a Popular Movement, the New Center, and the Movement for France.

The declaration favors “the defense of the fundamental right of a child the be cared for and to develop within a family composed of a father and a mother.”


  1. MIke J.
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    The article on states that the number opposed was 174 in 2006. It's now down to 112. Thanks for the good news, NOM.

  2. Publius
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Children have a natural right to be attached to their biological parents whether the state recognizes it or not.

  3. Davide
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    proves only socialist supports SS'M'. I think the vast majority of people in all cultures recognize to intentionally deny children a mother and father is morally repugnant and child trafficing.

  4. AM
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    "In 2006... a homosexual “marriage” campaign was rejected by a French parliamentary commission, which also rejected homosexual adoption."


    "The confinement of marriage to heterosexual couples was upheld by the nation’s highest court, the Constitutional Council, in January of 2011. Then, in June, the French National Assembly voted decisively against the creation of homosexual “marriage” in a 293-222 vote."

  5. Fitz
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    Its nice to note that France still defines marriage as the man + woman norm it is and should be. This is despite the concentrated efforts of the gaty lobby there.

    Indeed: The French Parlementary report that was issued when they had their fight against gay marriage can be found on-line and is a very informative and lucidly written document explaining why marriage should remain opposite sexed ( I guess the French Parliment are ("irrational bigots")

    France is expierencing the longterm effects of the sexual revolution and family breakdown in the form of sub replament level birthrates. They are actively seeking more French children by offering greater child taxbreaks.

    Its ironic but what may keep Europe and therefore America from embracing same-sex "marriage" is that welfare state socialism cant maintain itself without more taxpayers.

    That and the fact that the French can more easily ignore the like of Derrrida & Foucault because their French themselves. Unlike American academics who feel the need to worship at the feet of French Philosophy.

  6. Posted January 31, 2012 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Mike.J that was the total amount then. It will be higher than 174, pretty much because the recent vote on the bill showed nearly 300 people voted against the idea in the national assembly.

    You are nothing more than a trouble stirrer who advocates social division and passing laws that run contrary to most peoples beliefs and values.

    Vile is a word to describe your attitude

  7. MIke J.
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    Nope, the present number who oppose is 112, in 2006 the number who opposed was 174. There's a reason why Lifesienews does not provide a link.

  8. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    SS"M" advocates haven't considered children's rights or needs for one instant. They appear to care only about forcing public acceptance of their relationships on everyone. And their behavior suggests that children are perceived as little more than property to be owned, status symbols that prove to the world what great parents they are. Of course, a great parent does what's best for a child, selflessly. And what's best for a child is a mom and a dad.

  9. Posted January 31, 2012 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    "Children have a natural right to be attached to their biological parents whether the state recognizes it or not."

    And, just as important, procreators have an obligation to each other, and to the children they create, whether the state recognizes it or not. Only marriage between a man and a woman supports and maintains that standard.

  10. Apollonia
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    Children who has two mothers have denied their same rights than other children with two parents because of religious extremists like people of NOM. You all should join the Taliban they welcome your world-view.
    And please don`t comment political decisions in Europe if you have not the slightest knowledge about our political systems or our social structures. .

  11. Posted February 1, 2012 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    "Children who has two mothers have denied their same rights than other children with two parents because of religious extremists like people of NOM."

    But that's just the issue. Children don't actually have two mothers. They each are a product of a mother and a father. In homes where children are being raised by a mother and a step-parent pretending to be a mother, that child is being denied their natural right to being raised by their father. And somewhere, a father is neglecting his duties to that child. Children's rights to both their natural parents supersede adult wants.

  12. Louis E.
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    Apollonia,it is the "having two mothers" that deprives the child of proper rights.I am not religious and do not see this issue as religious.Anywhere in the world homosexual relationships exist,they need to be pressured to dissolve!

  13. Diana
    Posted February 2, 2012 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    Someone on here failed biology class. Not even the biggest, most evil LGBT activist in the world ( which is quite possibly Lady Gag) has two mothers or two fathers. That's on the level of the lies spread by the likes of Chaz Bono who describes herself as a "man" and the "pregnant man" who insisted on being documented as her children's father on their birth certificates.

  14. Pat
    Posted February 2, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    And that's not even getting into how they're actually wrong, I'm just pointing out how, even if we accept that they're right (they're not) for the sake of argument, it still makes no sense whatsoever.

  15. Breeze
    Posted February 2, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    Mike J wrote sarcastically: "The article on states that the number opposed was 174 in 2006. It's now down to 112. Thanks for the good news, NOM."

    That's wrong Mike. "s'allonge" means "grows". The number 174 in 2006 was the COMBINED number from both the UMP and the UDF parties. The new number of 115 was just the UMP alone. The article doesn't state the new total.

  16. Breeze
    Posted February 2, 2012 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

    By the way, here's the link:

    Slap it in google and hit the translate button.

  17. A person
    Posted February 5, 2012 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    What's best for the child doesn't necessarily mean a mother and a father. There are far too many 'mother's and fathers' that just have babies because that's what they're told you're supposed to do. Everyone else is doing it right? Children live in all sorts of social situations now. Grandparents and aunt or uncle(perhaps a gay aunt or uncle) a foster parents etc...

    Just because they're the biological parents doesn't mean they know what they're doing. Also, most heterosexual couples have children before they're actually ready because of unprotected sex. Most homosexual couples wait until mid 30s before they even think about adoption. What's important in a child's life is that they have 2 loving and trusting adults watching over them. Whether they be both male or both female.

    How about we get this antiquated notion of a family out of our heads and move along in this century. It is 2012 now and we're still arguing about this? Marriage has never just been between one woman and one man. Sometimes its one woman and several men or vice versa. Or it's a wife and slaves. In a lot of very old societies homosexuality was seen as perfectly normal as long as you produced an offspring to help the community. Now we have a lot of people and that's not really necessary. What we need are loving COUPLES to adopt the tens of thousands of unloved children in orphanages. If everyone was straight we'd have far too many people. That's why the more sons a woman has the more likely each successive one will be gay. It's natures way of preserving itself.Both men and women participated.

    In ancient China (maybe Japan) marriage between an older woman and a younger woman happened a lot. Most cultures didn't even have a term for gay because it wasn't even seen as something else. It was normal and it happened. So, let's just stop being ignorant. K, thanks.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.