Several hundred thousand people are expected to march through Paris on Sunday against the planned legalisation of same-sex marriage in the first mass protest against the unpopular President Francois Hollande.
Strongly backed by the Catholic hierarchy, lay activists have mobilised a hybrid coalition of church-going families, political conservatives, Muslims, evangelicals and even homosexuals opposed to gay marriage for the show of force.
So many are expected to converge on Paris from around France that police had organisers split it into three separate columns starting from different points around the city and meeting in the Champ de Mars park at the Eiffel Tower.
... Gay marriage opponents such as Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois, head of the Catholic Church in France, have asked why Hollande is pushing through a divisive social reform called "marriage for all" when voters seem more concerned about "jobs for all."
Vingt-Trois spearheaded the opposition with a critical sermon in August. Other faith leaders -- Muslim, Jewish, Protestant and Orthodox Christian -- soon spoke out too.
6 Comments
"Gay marriage opponents such as Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois, head of the Catholic Church in France, have asked why Hollande is pushing through a divisive social reform called "marriage for all" when voters seem more concerned about "jobs for all.""
Because that's where all the money is. Politicians are greatly influenced by the generous donations of special interest groups
Your picture is phoney. The crowd is repeated at least 5 times.
@ Herb: I don't think so. All news venues are reporting hundreds of thousands of protesters.
This is so good to see, so many people standing up to prevent a child from being ripped away from the opportunity to have both a mother and father.
The long awaited backslash against pseudo-marriage (SSM), in France!
SSM legislation creates a backslash (backwave of physical voter and political influence resistance) because of the way SSM advocates weasel it through the legislatures (with payback/bribes), as if it couldn't be re-defined back. It is not history forward. It is backward to government-by-special-interest, back to kingships, back to government by an elite or minority - same difference - not government by the MAJORITY (representative democracy). We are actually being asked or forced to accept the demise of a Representative Republic. It is not only about SSM. . .
Note that homosexuals, for the most and on-average, can save part of their earnings because they do not engender (and i don't mean adopt) the next generation. Lesbians who engender kids, statistically engender them in an opposite-sex relationship gone awry.
The institution of marriage is arranged for opposite-sex partners (only) because for the most part marriages will engender the next generation, and need special financial support through that great personal, though instinctive, sacrifice.
That doesn't mean friendships don't have needs, but they don't hardly engender or raise the next generation, and therefore have extra cash, relatively speaking. Marriage favors man/woman relationships over other forms of friendships, because statistically it is these relationships which, overall, engender the next generation, by a great margin.
I believe governments can solve the problem of SSM by providing benefits (not under the title of 'marriage') to other types of partnerships which contribute to the raising of the next generation: e.g., aunt and niece/nephew living together (adult aunt and minors or adult aunt and adult relatives), grandma raising bast-ards, adopted children by SS partners (when all else fails), but not aiding single moms or abortions (cruel, at first, but effective). There is no moral aspect to this formula of financial benefits/support per service rendered to the community. It is purely mathematical, and unemotional.
This formula is positive and persuasive because GOVERNMENT and elders benefit when the next generation is engendered to a wise level of population, controlled through incentives, and when that generation is raised with personal individual attention. There is no morality or love in this formula, since it is purely secular. Government already helps greatly through costly free education (via internet or Public Schools). But government realizes it SAVES money, not wastes money, in doing this. The same applies to marriage and other government subsidized partnerships. We all actually agree with this formula of governmental benefits for partnerships, whether homeless of in a house/apartment/cave.
Religious marriage is much more than this, but within a civil/secular context, marriage can only manage the meager minimum standard - gain parental assistance to engender and raise the next generation as best possible. It is up to the participants to add the other personal dimensions of marriage, for their own good, because these other dimensions (the religious, or philosophical for instance) strengthen marriages even more, than a simple civil contract can.
But the word 'marriage' should be reserved for the optimum - encouraging opposite-sex partners to sacrifice for the benefit of the entire society, and certainly not penalize them for it, nor equate them to same-sex friendships.
Look how little money, if any, is left over in families, on the average, after paying for the expenses of engendering and raising a child. Once a father & mother raises a child, that home can easily raise other children, sometimes even adopted children. [Father and mother terms should be reserved for biological father and mother, without 'falling into' loose analogies. Loose analogies are the culprits in this debate.]
The full biological family experience is a family with opposite-sex parents engendering and raising at least two daughters and two sons, in any order. In these families, each child has a brother, and also a sister. Adopted children can fill in the infertility voids in this formula.
The social prestige of marriage doesn't come from the civil contract. It comes from the religious or philosophical dimensions of marriage, which a mere civil contract lacks. Therefore there shouldn't be any illusion that a civil contract serves as a full marriage. It doesn't. How can a 2-person marriage in Las Vegas be equivalent to 2-families properly and orderly coming together to support a marriage? It cannot be. In the same way, a 2-person same-sex civil union cannot be equivalent, because it proposes to equate homosexual or lesbian unions with opposite-sex marriages, at the same time requiring society to promote homosexual or lesbian sexual practices. That cannot be. It has never survived through the ages, and it cannot possibly survive today - because it is not equivalent nor equal. Marriage deserves a special, exclusive, definition. There's no moral aspect in this. Society just doesn't have to accept or promote homosexual or lesbian sexual practices, and it won't.
I humbly propose this is the full and equitable solution to the marriage debate.
But, do we really WANT a solution? Or do we want the thrill of protecting our traditions or moral viewpoints within the secular arena? Like i often say: Get real.
Little Man, an impressive manifesto. Well written. Cogent.
Good luck with persuading others to ban civil marriage.