French Muslims have begun joining a mostly Catholic-led movement against same-sex marriage, widening opposition to the reform that the Socialist-led government is set to write into the law by June.
Fifty Muslim activists issued an open letter on Monday urging fellow Muslims to join a major Paris protest against the law on Sunday. That followed a similar appeal last Saturday by the influential Union of French Islamic Organisations (UOIF).
Leaders of almost all main faiths in France have spoken out against the law, but not called on their followers to march in Sunday's demonstration to avoid giving the opposition campaign an overly religious tone.
...
We will protest on January 13 by joining a pluralist campaign to preserve the traditional framework of marriage," the Muslim activists' letter said. "We invite all French Muslims to turn out in large numbers."
The UOIF statement also urged Muslims to join the "March for All", the Paris protest against the reform the government has dubbed "Marriage for All".
"This bill, if it passes, will disrupt family and social structures and civil law dangerously and irreparably," it said.
The Muslim activist letter was signed by intellectuals, business leaders and leaders of several grassroots Muslim groups.
4 Comments
It's fascinating to see what comes about when sincere individuals seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
What is the purpose of same-sex “marriage”?
In 2003, the Massachusetts Senate had certified a question to the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court asking if a proposed civil unions bill that EXPLICITLY provides that “eligible same-sex couples the
opportunity to obtain the benefits, protections, rights and
responsibilities afforded to opposite sex couples by the marriage laws of the commonwealth, without entering into a marriage” and that
“spouses in a civil union shall have all the same benefits,
protections, rights and responsibilities under law as are granted to spouses in a marriage”Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 440
Mass. 1201, 802 N.E.2d 565 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. 2004)
Several gay rights groups submitted amici briefs arguing that the
civil unions bill would violate the Massachusetts ERA, on the basis
that civil unions are “separate and unequal” and a form of
“segregation”, GLAD Brief in Opinions, SJC-09163, at 12, because they denied the
“social recognition” that comes with marriage, Id. at 24,they would
“mark [same-sex couples] as inferior to their heterosexual
counterparts and diminish their status in the community” regardless of
whether they provided “the same benefits, protections,rights and
responsibilities under law as are granted to spouses in a marriage”,
Civil Rights Brief in Opinions at 12 , and that civil unions “would
not constitute equality, because their relationships still would not
be recognized by the rest of society as being as valued as heterosexual relationships.” id. at 13
And in Li v. State of Oregon, 338 Or 376, 388, 110 P3d 91 (Or. Sup.
Ct. 2005) plaintiffs had argued that civil unions would be “inherently
stigmatizing” and “inherently separate and unequal” Reply Brief of
Plaintiff-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, Li, at 10.
And in Jackson v. Abercrombie , the plaintiffs are suing because of
the “special status” of marriage, not just
the “bundle of rights” which the civil union law would allow them. See
Complaint in Jackson v. Abercrombie, CV11-009734-ACK-KSC, at 13,
quoting Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 315 at
289, 957 A.2d 407 at 416 (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2008)
The underlying fallacies of these arguments are the assumptions that the social recognition and social value, and social status of marriage
is independent of the male-female dynamic, and that heterosexual
relationships are valued BECAUSE they are called marriages. If this be so, it is not because of anything in the proposed civil unions acts,
but the solely due to the construction buggerist fundamentalists choose to put upon it.
In other words, the purpose of same-sex "marriage" is to make buggerist fundamentalists feel better about themselves.
Amen.
Muslims are a hundred times closer to Christians than is the Secular religion.
And they are a hundred times more healthy in mind and soul than is the Secular religion.
(And they're a hundred times closer to the god of Abraham than is the Secular religion; but now that's getting to personal, and its changing the topic; which is, marriage is between man and woman and the best for children is a mother and a father.)
Michael Ejercito Civil unions were not enough in Vermont, Connecticut, England, Denmark, New Zealand, Portugal or Canada; methinks anyone advocating them as a "compromise" might aswell advocate for homosexual 'marriage'. It is just a stepping stone- dont let Colorado, Italy and Australia make the same mistake