NOM BLOG

Update from France: A Pro-Marriage Rebellion!

 

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Ally,

I write to you from France, where a pro-marriage rebellion is underway!

Francois Hollande, the ultra liberal President of France, swept into power last May, promising among many other things a swift legalizing of same-sex marriage and adoption.

But the people of France did not want this to be.

You see, the French people know in their bones that every child deserves a mother and father. And so they took to the streets – hundreds of thousands of them!

I am proud to be a part of this historic moment in France. See for yourself:

The pro-marriage movement in France is passionate, diverse, uncompromising and inspired. They are also calm, rational and persistent.

This was the biggest pro-marriage demonstration to date. Conservative estimates number the crowds in the hundreds of thousands.

They held signs that read "Une papa, une maman pour TOUS les enfants! — which means "A dad, a mom for ALL children." Some children held signs that read "Made in papa + maman": "Made in mom and dad."

I have been so excited to be part of this new international solidarity movement in defense of marriage, children and family.

I will certainly be reflecting more on this experience on my flight home. And I would ask you to join me in thinking about more creative ways we can proclaim our pro-marriage views with passion and conviction...and in the public square where our fellow Americans can see our fervor and resolution.

I can't wait to come back to the country I love.

But I am inspired to see that those of us in America who hold the institution of marriage sacred truly have so many friends overseas and around the world.

A new day is dawning for marriage.

As I said when I ended a speech last night before a group of French leaders in the fight to protect marriage: Vive le Marriage -- Vive la France!

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.

26 Comments

  1. Christoph
    Posted January 13, 2013 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    A new day is dawning; France will soon have marriage equality ! Get it?

  2. CGG
    Posted January 13, 2013 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    The polls still show France is 56% in favor of same-sex marriage. Beliefs are not facts.

  3. FemEagle
    Posted January 13, 2013 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    It is indeed a revolution. The forces of true marriage are not just a political force, they are a force of nature. NATURE set up the biological blueprint, not some politician in Washington. NATURE is the definitive source of all truths. To defy it is to defy reality, which is what the left specializes in. Good for France. It helped finance the first American Revolution. Hopefully it will spiritually finance the Second, and the true America will rise again.

  4. Publius
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 12:27 am | Permalink

    Surveys indicate that popular support for gay marriage in France has slipped about 10 points to less than 55 percent since opponents started speaking out. Fewer than half of those polled recently favored giving gay couples adoption rights.

    Every person on the planet was born from a father and a mother. Legally erasing either is a legal fiction based on a belief not a fact. People are waking up to that.

  5. charte
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 3:25 am | Permalink

    French were over a million in Paris streets yesterday to protest against the gay wedding law project and are ready to come back again if their request of removing it completely is ignored. official nbr is a lie and shows how little care French government has of his people. Votes will significantly shift in 4 years !

  6. Jane J.
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    Hollande had better be very careful or he'll be on his way out very soon.

  7. Joe
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    "Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment nothing can fail. Without it nothing can succeed. He who molds opinion is greater than he who enacts laws."
    - Abraham Lincoln

  8. Marc Paul
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    Like other countries that have introduced equal marriage, the Bill will go through, the sky will not fall, people will move on and wonder what all the fuss was about when they see that none of the hysterical scaremongering lies comes true.

    Virginia vs Love came about against a majority opinion against mixed marriage. Public sentiment is not everything thought by all means you may quote Lincolm out of context.

  9. Randy E King
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    Love v Virginia had majority opinion in support of interracial marriage and it did not require the changing of the intent of marriage in order to accommodate it.

    Every other country that has adopted this assault known as SSM are near bankrupt with decreases in birthrates and authentic marriages that are heading towards crisis condition. But you just keep on beating the bushes for willing victims who affirm the appropriateness of your crimes against humanity Marc.

  10. M. jones
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    Adoption agencies forced to close, students expelled from school for standing for natural law, businesses forced to closed and sued, Christians fired from the their jobs, and children ripped from the opportunity of knowing both their mother and father. But no, the sky has not fallen..

  11. Ash
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    Not to mention the 3-parents bill that almost became law in CA thanks to a same-sex marriage, with 3-parents being a possibility in Canada, 3-way domestic partnership contracts in Brazil and the Netherlands. But it's true that the sky has not fallen!

  12. Publius
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    Degendering marriage means legally eliminating or debasing the terms father and mother, bride and groom husband and wife, which will eventually degender all of family law. This will work to the disadvantage of most women and most children, but will work to the advantage of the rich and well-lawyered.

    Like counterfeiting currency, each counterfeit coin debases the value of the currency only a little, but the cumulative effect can be large over time.

  13. Teri Simpkins
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Adoption agencies closed because they wanted government money without following government rules, no children expelled permanently, businesses closed voluntarily or sued for not following the law, and children adopted into loving homes instead of constantly changing foster homes or being placed into group homes. That's the reality.

  14. David in Houston
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    Less than 1% of the populous showed up for this so-called rebellion. The other 99% were busy watching a Jerry Lewis marathon, apparently.

  15. Publius
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    Re 11. Of course, that is the point. Degendering is forced on the unsuspecting society by government regulations, even thought the so-called ERA did not pass and even though the populace is assured this won’t affect them, their businesses, their churches, or their schools. Agencies and business that don’t accept on the unsound assumption that mothers and fathers are merely fungible persons are closed down by the government, effectively degendering society and all of family law. This works to the benefit of the rich and well lawyered, but not to the benefit of vulnerable women and children.

    Marriage supports and nurtures biological families consisting of one husband and one wife and potentially their children, the primary social and economic unit in our culture and “the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization” according the SCOTUS (see Murphy v. Ramsey). Marriage loses its ability to provide this function when 'family' is redefined to include any group of people who choose to view themselves as related.

  16. Publius
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    Re nr. 12.

    What percentage of the colonial population showed up at Lexington and Concord?

  17. Marc Paul
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    @m. jones. One example of each does not equate to a falling sky. Not proven. Is there a widespread recognisable, measurable trend with a direct proven causal relationship to equal marriage in any jurisdiction globally?

    (False conclusions re Spainish marriage rates not acceptable. Marriage not amenable to short term statistical analysis)

  18. Randy E King
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    @Marc,

    Weak attempt at plausible deniability at best. You claimed there were no instances of abuse and then followed up with an ineffective "so what" when undeniable examples were provided.

    One thing is clear; your depravity is more important to you then life itself.

  19. zack
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    "Adoption agencies closed because they wanted government money without following government rules, no children expelled permanently, "

    Closed because their freedom of conscience is violated. Government money or not, the first amendment guarantees freedom of religion. A religious agency being shut down because of change in the marriage laws is and rightly should be recognized as such. There was a time in this country when we respected the decisions of groups or businesses regardless if we disagreed with them. But hey...that was when this country was actually free.

    "businesses closed voluntarily or sued for not following the law,"

    Again, freedom of conscience. A human being should have the right to run their businesses in accordance with their beliefs. If the community rejects their way of thinking, then the business will cease to exist. Funny how the free market works.

    " and children adopted into loving homes instead of constantly changing foster homes or being placed into group homes. "

    Okay. That in no way makes the case for why Marriage should be redefined.

    "That's the reality."

    No it's not. The reality is when Marriage is redefined, religious liberty is put at risk. The push for this leaves no room for a free and open society. Rather it pushes for compulsory acceptance which is in direct conflict with many amendments, mainly the 1st.

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032400.asp

  20. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 12:16 am | Permalink

    This is very inspiring news from France. Kudos, Brian, for being a part of it. I hope that more people will begin to realize that kids need a married mother and father, that this is the most nurturing environment for them. This is something that everyone can understand, whether they're religious or not.

  21. Mikhail
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    Leftists should stop bagging the Catholic church. Do they really think France's 7-8% Muslim population is pro-gay? What about Orthodox jews? Even the ATHEIST Prime Minister of Australia is opposed to homosexual unions; she can see there are requirements for marriage such as the potential for procreation; whether u believe in religion or not it is a fact that putting a penis in an anus will not produce a baby

  22. Posted January 15, 2013 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    1.3 Million turned out according to one reliable source from the Gendarmerie!

    It's the largest march of protest in French History.

  23. Chairm
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    SSM is not marriage. Its imposition is the imposition of a falsehood. Truth matters.

    As for consequences, The imposition of SSM has forced adoption agencies to conform against freedom of conscience. Catholic agencies were forced out becuase the state license is necessary to operate. T had zilch to do with government funding since the volinteers and independent fundraising dwarfed the government's part. The license, that is the key. Progay bigotry, that is the misguided priority of government under the SS regime.

    As for other examples, readers will note that the SSM advocates applaude the progay bigotry that is part and parcel of their gay emphasis. The SSM idea is the outright rejection of the marriage idea. The gay emphasis does not turn the falsehood of the SSM idea, nor the unjust assault on freedom, into a truth and into justice. But the SSM advocates agrree that the imposition of SSM has real consequences they count on. They just feel these are desirable no matter the cost to society.

    They are racist analogues today. They assert the supremacy of identity politics which is the meaning of their gay emphasis. Such supremacy was wrong when it was for the sake of white identity politics and is no less wrong under gay identity politics.

    The French promarriage movement is a stand against progay bigotry and members of the adult homosexual population have pretty much said so in their antiSSM remarks there.

  24. Chairm
    Posted January 19, 2013 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    Marc Paul uses the bumpersticker slogan, «equal marriage», but he favors inequality.

    Why favor the gay subset of the range of one-sexed types of relationship and types of living arrangements?

    Is same-sex sexual attraction the justification? Well, not if there is no legal requirement for those who'd SSM. That lack of a legal requirement is decisive. SSMers sayso when they attack the centrality of responsible procreation.

    But, course, there is a legal requirement in marriage law that does not fit the SSM idea. The bride-and-groomrequirement. And another: The consent requirement -- consent to the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. Also: the sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery, and so forth. That sexual basis is two-sexed and not sex-neutral.

    Imposition of SSM depends on something that is not a legal requirement for those who'd SSM. But SSMers demand that the actual legal requirements for marriage are to be abolished. Crazy thinking.

    Oh, sure, their gay emphasis is the big deal they insist it is, right, even without a legal requirement. They mean that the gay identity group must be granted favoritism. So, among the nonmarital types of relationships and among the nonmarital types of living arrangements, guess what? Yep, the SSMers demand unequal treatment. Gay is superiro to all the rest of nonmarriage.

    In a fit of open insanity, the SSMers mislabel the gay relationship "marital" and do so with no sound argumentation. They rely on hyper sentimentality but repeatedly undermine their own pro-SSM complaint (they insist the marriage law must be justified but cannot justify SSM law) and they cut the knees out from under their pro-SSM solution (they demand unequal treatment of similarly situated scenarios). They whine that same-sex sexual attraction is not a legitimate basis for lawmaking on marriage (there is no such legal requirement for ineligibility to marry) and they whine that same-sex sexual attraction is the legitimate basis for lawmaking on SSM (but they do not propose a legal requirement for that). They are stuck on stupid and vapid sloganeering and repeat the same errors over and over and over.

    They want what they want and so they stomp their feet and show that for these gay advocates this is not about justice but is «just about us». Self-centered advocacy of inequality is the beginning and the end of their childish tantrums and noisemaking. There is no sound argumentation from them. Just sloganeering and sneering.

    Contrast that with the pro-marriage demonstrators and their sanity shines brightly and sheds a very harsh light on the SSMers.

  25. Chairm
    Posted January 19, 2013 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    Consider the legitimate boundaries of eligibility and ineligiblity. Marriage requires consent to all that marital status entails. That includes the sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery, harm, and so forth. These legal provisions -- arising from the mutual consent of bride and groom (as the two-sexed duo rather than as a sex-neutral duo) to form the type of sexual relationship oriented to procreation -- are longstanding and have no anti-gay basis in our legal system. None. But these provisions are a coherent whole and that is demonstrated by the sexual basis for the marital presumption (a legal default and not merely a social assumption nor a private assumption) that the husband will father the children born to he and his wife. This explains exclusivity and the two-person requirement. It explains the sexual basis for consummation of a type of relationship that is reproductive in kind (and, no, that does not mean that procreation is a mandatory outcome willed by the man and woman duo) and which is a comprehensive interpersonal unio. It is this comprehensiveness (volitional, emotional, physical, social, and spiritual) that unites the complementarily sexed twosome as very closely related family members.

    The husband and wife might be unrelated prior to their marriage, however, their comprehensive relationship makes them more closely related to each other than either would have been totheir blood relatives. This explains the legal basis for affinity through marriage (ie in-laws) and how relatedness becomes something on which society may base laws of eligibility and ineligiblity. Coital relations manifests the bodily union of husband and wife. That type of relationship has limits arising from its comprehensiveness. Societal regard for that means that the relatedness boundary is persistent throughout history and cultures even if the exact line varies from society to society.

    Likewise the age requirements which use age as proxy for capacity to consent to the sexual basis of a relationship that is procreative in kind.

    It also explains how societies regard multi-marriage and group scenarios in terms of eligiblity and ineligibility. Regulation of coital relationships and of familial prioritization is art and parcel of the marriage idea.

    The SSM idea throws away the sexual basis for marriage. It is ironic that the SSMers demand that society disregard -- and a bolish -- the sexual basis for marriage, but, in the same breath, demand that society regard as the utmost importance the sexual basis for their gay emphasis in imposition of the sexless SSM idea. By their thinking, same-sex sexual attraction is more importantto society than is the sexual complementarity of the marital relationship. But how is that even possible to sustain?

    Especially with their deliberate refusal to make same-sex sexual attraction and behavior absolutely mandatory for those who'd SSM? Or, with an SSM merger with marriage, make mandatory for two-sexed scenarios the same sort of sexual behavior to which the one-sexed scenario is limited? Indeed, they refuse to make sexual attraction and behavior compulsory or evensomething that is decisively what participants consent to when they say, I do. Apparently the SSMers talk a big talk about sexual attraction but don't actually mean what they say.

    The disconnect is within their own rhetoric, within their own argumentation, and within their own proposed resolution of the conflict they push between the SSM idea and the marriage idea.

    Minus the sexual aspect, the SSM idea is just a call for the sort of protections already available in provisions for designated beneficiaries. And such designations cannot be justly limited to twosomes, to sexualized scenarios, nor to unrelated people.

    Take away the sexual basis for marriage and remove the legitimate basis for the special status of marriage. And abolish the distinction between marriage and nonmarriage. Throw away the basis for drawing the lines of eligibility and ineligibility to marry. That is a lot of damage for no good reason.

    Think about that: SSMers demand damage be done for a reason that they refuse to encode as a legal requirement for those who'd SSM.

    They don't believe their own rhetoric, argumentation, and bumperstickers. They might feel strongly but they do not think clearly nor deeply on this matter.

  26. Chairm
    Posted January 19, 2013 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    Consider the legitimate boundaries of eligibility and ineligiblity. Marriage requires consent to all that marital status entails. That includes the sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery, harm, and so forth.

    These legal provisions -- arising from the mutual consent of bride and groom (as the two-sexed duo rather than as a sex-neutral duo) to form the type of sexual relationship oriented to procreation -- are longstanding and have no anti-gay basis in our legal system. None.

    But these provisions are a coherent whole and that is demonstrated by the sexual basis for the marital presumption (a legal default and not merely a social assumption nor a private assumption) that the husband will father the children born to he and his wife.

    This explains exclusivity and the two-person requirement. It explains the sexual basis for consummation of a type of relationship that is reproductive in kind (and, no, that does not mean that procreation is a mandatory outcome willed by the man and woman duo) and which is a comprehensive interpersonal union publicly held in special regard.

    It is this comprehensiveness (volitional, emotional, physical, social, and spiritual) that unites the complementarily-sexed twosome as very closely related family members.

    The husband and wife might be unrelated prior to their marriage, however, their comprehensive relationship makes them more closely related to each other than either would have been to their blood relatives. This explains the legal basis for affinity through marriage (ie in-laws) and how relatedness becomes something on which society may base laws of eligibility and ineligiblity. Coital relations manifests the bodily union of husband and wife. That type of relationship has limits arising from its comprehensiveness. Societal regard for that means that the relatedness boundary is persistent throughout history and cultures even if the exact location of the line varies from society to society.

    Likewise the age requirements which use age as proxy for capacity to consent to the sexual basis of a relationship that is procreative in kind.

    It also explains how societies regard multi-marriage and group scenarios in terms of eligiblity and ineligibility. Regulation of coital relationships and of familial prioritization is part and parcel of the marriage idea.

    The SSM idea throws away the sexual basis for marriage. It is ironic that the SSMers demand that society disregard -- and abolish from law if not also in culture -- the sexual basis for marriage, but, in the same breath, they demand that society regard as the utmost importance the sexual basis for their gay emphasis in imposition of the sexless SSM idea.

    By their thinking, same-sex sexual attraction is more important to society than is the sexual complementarity of the marital relationship. But how is that even possible to sustain -- in law and culture? They do not say. They merely assert their faith in the arbitrary exercise of governmental power.

    Especially with their deliberate refusal to make same-sex sexual attraction and behavior absolutely mandatory for those who'd SSM? Or, with a merger of SSM with marriage, they purposefully refuse to make mandatory for two-sexed scenarios the same sort of sexual behavior to which the one-sexed scenario is limited? Indeed, they refuse to make sexual attraction and behavior compulsory or even make it something that is decisively what participants consent to when they say, I do.

    Apparently the SSMers talk a big talk about sexual attraction but don't actually mean what they say.

    The disconnect is within their own rhetoric, within their own argumentation, and within their own proposed resolution of the conflict they aggressively push between the SSM idea and the marriage idea.

    On substance the SSM idea cannot beat the marriage idea. Only through arbitrariness can the superficial and impoverished and recent SSM idea be favored over the deep and enriched and time-tested marriage idea.

    Minus the sexual aspect, the SSM idea is just a call for the sort of protections already available in provisions for designated beneficiaries. And such designations cannot be justly limited to twosomes, to sexualized scenarios, nor to unrelated people.

    Take away the sexual basis for marriage and remove the legitimate basis for the special status of marriage. And abolish the distinction between marriage and nonmarriage. Throw away the basis for drawing the lines of eligibility and ineligibility to marry. That is a lot of damage for no good reason.

    Think about that: SSMers demand damage be done for a reason that they refuse to encode as a legal requirement for those who'd SSM. The imposition of SSM throws away the same-sex sexual basis for the type of relationship that SSMers have in mind with their gay emphasis.

    The SSM campaign uses the SSM idea to assert the supremacy of gay identity politics. That assertion is what they'd pour into the gutted marriage law. That supremacy becomes the core meaning of SSM. Ote that no socio-political identity is inborn. Compare with white racist upremacy and its sexless basis for favoring one identity group over marriage and much else.

    Most SSMers are soft supporters and are misled by the hardcore SSMers who, actually, don't believe their own rhetoric, argumentation, and bumperstickers. They might feel strongly but they do not think clearly nor deeply on this matter. But they are very clear on the supremacy of gay identity politics.