NOM BLOG

Support for SSM in France Falls From 65% to 50% in Wake of Paris Rally

 

CBN:

President Francois Hollande is planning to legalize same-sex marriage, but the country's Catholic bishops and other religious leaders are fighting the initiative.

Public opinion appears to be moving in their favor, with a recent poll showing about 50 percent of French support same-sex marriage, down from 65 percent in August.

France has already legalized civil unions for same-sex couples, but this new law gives gay couples the rights to adopt.

Traditional French groups say children should be raised by a mother and a father.

25 Comments

  1. Posted January 18, 2013 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    It's so nice to see that the Paris demonstration was a resounding success. Nobody, I think, expected it to be so. It went beyond everybody's expectations. And the images are simply wonderful.

    I hope also that more and more people realize how lame homosexual activists are by calling anyone who question their agenda as "homophobic." I think it is becoming apparent how manipulative it is. And that people who endorse a homosexuality agenda are not endorsing progress.

    I think a lot of people are beginning to see the people who employ such insults have little to offer in terms of morality and a picture of a healthy society.

    A lot of smoke screen, a lot of insults, but behind is a real cruddy ideology.

  2. Good News
    Posted January 18, 2013 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    "...this new law gives gay couples the rights to adopt."
    Be more to the point.
    It gives them the right to conceive children. (Even if this detail this culture change is to be made into law a couple months after homosexual marriage laws).

    It gives homosexual couples the right to educate those children in the idea that they came to existence thanks to a same-sex union. That is what is new. And that is what is intolerable.
    It gives the State the right to condemn anyone who would teach otherwise to the children of our community.

    The issue is much more than that of raising children; that which any combination of adults can and has done in the past.

  3. M. jones
    Posted January 18, 2013 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    The Supreme Court will fix this USA pseudo marriage mess in a few months. Children will finally learn what that natures law has a purpose and is best for their welfare.

  4. Zack
    Posted January 18, 2013 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

    I find it disheartening that we aren't seeing this kind of movement here in the U.S.

  5. Fitz
    Posted January 19, 2013 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    Zack

    "I find it disheartening that we aren't seeing this kind of movement here in the U.S."

    We are... it is simply not reported on. Chick-fil-a episode demonstrates are streangth and the enthusiasm gap that exists between opponents and proponents of marriage.

    If the marriage movment decided to have a march it would swamp washington and break all previous records...no question..

    Gays and gay "marriage" supporters couldnt hope to compare.

  6. Will Fisher
    Posted January 19, 2013 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    Fitz, the only thing the Chick-fil-a episode proved was that social conservatives will turn out more robustly for a fried chicken sandwich than an election.

  7. Good News
    Posted January 19, 2013 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    I think you're right Fitz.
    When should the first of such marches take place?
    And how should it come about?
    Should it be when the "supreme" court starts sticking its nose int the matter?
    Anyway, besides such national marches, more actions like Chick-fil-a should and must take place.
    We need to be seen, and the average people have to learn to work together on this issue.

  8. Posted January 19, 2013 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    Will Fisher wrote: "Fitz, the only thing the Chick-fil-a episode proved was that social conservatives will turn out more robustly for a fried chicken sandwich than an election."

    Whodathought that fried chicken could hold such sway over people? :-)

    I do have to say that the phenomenon of large numbers of people not voting is a pity.

    Good News wrote: "more actions like Chick-fil-a should and must take place. We need to be seen, and the average people have to learn to work together on this issue."

    Totally agree. And why not, with plenty of good food?

    We also need to promote companies like ChickFA and to boycott the ones that attack real marriage.

  9. zack
    Posted January 19, 2013 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    @Fitz

    I guess. I'm still skeptical. Guess I'm just not looking hard enough?

  10. zack
    Posted January 19, 2013 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    @Alessandra

    "We also need to promote companies like ChickFA and to boycott the ones that attack real marriage."

    We don't need to boycott anything. If you support freedom, then you respect the decisions of these CEO's. However, we should be there to stand up for the businesses owners and CEO's who make the decision to support the American Values System and are punished for it.

  11. zack
    Posted January 19, 2013 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    typo:business*

  12. Randy E King
    Posted January 19, 2013 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    Your conscience should dictate that you do not patronage Starbucks, Hallmark, General Mill, Levis, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, JCP, Facebook, and the like.

    Sadly; these acts of conscience take a while to manifest themselves in the earnings reports, and even longer for the powers-that-be to acknowledge the damage they have done to shareholder value.

    But if all those that showed up for Chick-fil-A appreciation day would take an hour out or their day to note all of the products being advertised on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, and MSDNC and boycott said products for two full quarters they would be amazed how quickly these scoundrels change course.

    The only thing more important to them then their depravity is the money that enables them to live decadent lives.

  13. MarkOH
    Posted January 19, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    The train has left the station. Marriage equality WILL be the norm. And all your little boycotts and threats against companies will fail.

  14. Posted January 19, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    Randy wrote: ... boycott said products for two full quarters they would be amazed how quickly these scoundrels change course.

    Exactly! That is the pressure point.

    Zack wrote: If you support freedom, then you respect the decisions of these CEO's.

    Actually anyone who supports freedom needs to boycott companies promoting a homosexuality agenda and homosexual marriage. For a really good example, look at Apple and their censorship of the Manhattan declaration. They hate social conservatives. Anyone buying Apple products is just giving money to people with the worse values and views.

    There is nothing to respect regarding such CEOs, only to object and boycott.

  15. coldfish
    Posted January 19, 2013 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    @zack:

    I'm for corporations keeping out of divisive social issues entirely, whether they're taking a conservative or liberal view.

    I was supportive of Dan Cathy, because he expressed a personal opinion and CEOs should be free to act as private citizens, give their personal beliefs, donate to causes they want to.

    I wouldn't care if the CEO of Starbucks took a position in favor of same-sex marriage.

    What I don't like is when corporations officially take a position, and presume to speak for all of the employees and stockholders of the company. That's what Starbucks did, that's what Amazon did. Corporations as entities in general should keep their nose out of political issues unless they involve laws that directly affect them.

  16. Publius
    Posted January 19, 2013 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    For better or worse, the boycotts are part of a culture war. The really vulnerable points of multinational operations like Starbucks and General Mills are overseas, especially in the Islamic world. If their competitors can brand Starbucks as the gay coffee company and General Mills as the gay cereal company, their sales in the Middle East will suffer.

  17. Mikhail
    Posted January 20, 2013 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    Zack, 1000 people rallied in Providence, Rhode Island. There will also be a huge one in Illinois soon. Yes people here are waking up, just very slowly. I think boycotts are not the solution, the solution is to convince people that marriage and pro-life issues are worth changing your vote over. BHO won the last election because African American, Latino and Asian voters elected him on the prospect of getting food stamps and cheaper healthcare. We need to convince those voters that those things are not as important as marriage!

  18. Posted January 20, 2013 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    I am for boycotts. Corporations think they can be in good terms with everyone, supporting SSm directly as a corporation. They need to sense how it offends their employees or stock holders who don't want to be working for a company that tries to please only part of their employees or stock holders. These corporations needs to stay neutral, or suffer the consequences. Supporters of SSm want boycotts, and want companies to take a side on the issue. That is convincing corporations to take a risk for their cause. Soon enough they find out a silent majority is not going to be pleased, to say the least.

  19. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted January 20, 2013 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    Pseudo-marriage enjoys a lot of fake support from socialist-minded political types and their complicit media, who recognize that the best way to make the citizenry dependent upon the government is to become everyone's mommy and daddy.

    It also enjoys a lot of "soft" support from citizens who have never thought past the slogans and catch phrases that blanket the airwaves. These folks have never been given the opportunity to consider the true purpose of marriage, which is to unite children with their mother and father.

    It takes a lot of work to penetrate the noisy static of the pseudo-marriage messaging. Once people hear our message their support for pseudo-marriage melts away.

  20. Teri Simpkins
    Posted January 20, 2013 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    Funny, Little Man, how you say companies should stay neutral or suffer the consequences. That's definitely not what NOM wants. Neutrality is the last thing NOM wants. If neutrality was so wanted, they wouldn't be praising the companies that are on their side.

  21. Zack
    Posted January 20, 2013 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    @Alessendra

    "They hate social conservatives. Anyone buying Apple products is just giving money to people with the worse values and views."

    Okay, but as a supporter of the Free Market as well as a Social Conservative, my beliefs dictate that I shop somewhere else and not hinder the patronage of others who wish to buy Apple products. That being said, the same respect should be applied to businesses who stand for the American Values System. It makes no sense how someone could support freedom but advocate that a business be punished for not complying with their way of thinking.

  22. Posted January 20, 2013 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    Teri Simpkins: I am laughing too :)

  23. Posted January 20, 2013 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

    Okay Teresa: Give me an example for your claim "If neutrality was so wanted, they wouldn't be praising the companies that are on their side."

    Hopefully you can stay on subject (Try hard) and mention only corporate stands, not personal stands. And try to make it snappy :)

  24. Dan
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    >>Anyone buying Apple products is just giving money to people with the worse values and views."

    I wouldn't say they helping to fight their own values in every case, though I can understand why it may seem that way on the surface. In some cases of technology purchases, such purchases may ultimately lead to higher productivity levels by which the purchaser will thereby generate greater profits which, in turn, allows them to ultimately render more financial support over time to the causes that champion their values than they would be able to otherwise (potentially far exceeding whatever amount of profit from the purchase the technology company is able to dedicate to fighting said purchaser's values).

    Think about this productivity example: Consider a business owner who grew up using a Mac, is well-versed in the Mac OS, and is therefore more productive continuing on Macs than he/she would be now switching to a Windows-based PC. It's likely the business owner's greater productivity from staying with Macs will, in turn, lead to the generation of greater profits than would be achieved otherwise, and out of this increased discretionary income more funds will be available to champion the business owner's values.

    I'd prefer marriage defenders continue to use whatever tools they believe are enabling them to earn the most money which, in turn, provides them with the most discretionary funds from which they can maximize support of their values. To me, it's a question of which side ultimately benefits more from our purchases. As the old saying goes, let's not cut off our nose to spite our face. :)

  25. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

    Apple has compromised the pro-marriage people who 1) are in the employ of the company and 2) are the loyal and paying customers of the company.

    There are consequences that Apple has decided to make their employees pay and their customers pay for a soci-political product. This is so whether or not either walks away from Apple and its real products.

    When I went to purchase an Apple product I said this to the manager of the shop. She agreed with me that this was a bizarre thing for the company to have done. We spoke in the open amongst other customers and amongst employees there. Many nodded in agreement. Many shrugged indifferently. A few objected with huffs or with disparaging remarks directly toward me, rather than the manager.

    There is a price to pay for pro-gay bigotry. The pro-gay bigots just can't imagine that they will be paying any cost at all. Instead they imagine that society will just have to carry the burden. Obstinate unreasoning. That is how the pro-gay bigot, and bigots in general, go about their business.