Sunday, November 11, 2012

The Debate on Homosexual Marriage

A bill has been introduced in France that would allow homosexuals to marry and adopt children. Parliamentary debate on the bill begins next year. Final voting is scheduled for mid-year.

Le Salon Beige, a high-quality Catholic website, operated by lay ministers with helpful comments from intelligent readers, campaigns fervently for the Church and the survival of the Catholic faith in France. The tone of Le Salon Beige is always polite, even when the situation more than justifies anger if not exasperation and despair. Despair is not an option, and the articles that have been pouring forth every day for many weeks from LSB on the reasons why this bill has to be defeated, give one many reasons to hope that the best interests of married couples and children will in the end prevail.

It is impossible to choose one or two articles from the multitude, so I am turning first to a recent statement from Patrice Carvalho (below), a member of the Front de gauche, of all things. You may recall that the Front de gauche was the left-wing coalition that included Communists in the May 2012 presidential election, and that its candidate was the flamboyant and rude Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who never hid his admiration for the murderous legacy of Stalin. Here are Carvalho's thoughts:


"I will vote against it. I voted for the Pacs (Civil union pact) and that's enough. Marriage means a man and a woman who can conceive a child. Nature is not made any other way. This topic is not the priority of the French people at this time, it's a smoke screen!"

Carvalho is far from the only leftist to oppose the bill. In fact, there are homosexual groups and individuals who oppose it. I will try to have more in the days to come.

I turn now to an interview with Minister of Justice Christiane Taubira, sponsor of the bill. The interview is excerpted at Le Salon Beige, with the source given as Ouest-France. Interspersed in italics are comments from Le Salon Beige:

- Ouest-France: The passing of the civil union pact (Pacs) in 1999 was not enough?

- Christiane Taubira: There's no point in remaking history. The Pacs was a step forward that the Right, at the time, violently opposed. Already back then some wanted to go further. Our society is evolving.

(LSB: It is evolving. So tomorrow it will evolve toward the legalization of polygamy, of incest, of marriages for three or four, etc…)


- CT: It's a reform of society and one could even call it a reform of civilization. We don't intend to act as if we were merely touching up three or four commas in the Civil Code.

(LSB: There. She said it.)

- CT: As Keeper of the Seals, I deal with civil marriage, I don't touch the Bible. To each his own realm.

(LSB: Yes, to each his own realm: marriage existed before the State and that is why the State has no power to redefine it. But this affirmation from Mme Taubira is a threat because, in the mouth of the Left, what was false yesterday becomes true tomorrow (cf the Pacs). We can therefore normally expect persecutions, later, against those who would dare to refuse to recognize homosexual "marriage".)


- CT: The right to a child does not exist. We are opening, with equal rights, marriage and adoption to couples of the same sex. The procedures and the regulations will be the same for everyone, heterosexual couples, homosexual couples.

(LSB: The regulations will not be the same for the children who will be deprived of a father or a mother.)


- CT: But today, fifty-four per cent of French children are born out of wedlock. In some cities and neighborhoods, there are up to twenty-seven percent of single-parent households. That's the sociological reality."


(LSB: Yes. That's the result of the individualism that causes society to break down. And it is surprising to learn how many single households there are. Considering the additional amendments on PMA and surrogate mothers, the minister does not flinch:)


Note: PMA refers to "medically assisted procreation": in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, etc...

- CT: If there is a majority and an amendment passes, the government will acknowledge this. We will debate the issues. I will represent the voice and the position of the government.


(LSB: As for the mayors and adjunct mayors who refuse to enforce this illegitimate law, the minister warns:)


- CT: If a mayor turns it over to an adjunct, no problem. If the entire municipal council refuses, I will remind them that they are acting as officers of the civil State by delegation of the State. They are expected to respect the law. If they refuse, they may be suspended or discharged.

Le Salon Beige readers are horrified at Taubira's remarks:

- This Taubira is the shame of France! She has none of the values that made France! By what right does she think she can reform civilization???? Nature - Man/Woman - will always be ordained that way, and no reform will change anything!


- I don't see what else we can do except to call for the revocation of this administration of madmen and criminals who dare attack the very foundation of our civilization…


- If she wants to fire our mayors, this shrew will have to send in the army, because WE elected them, and we intend to keep them! Another solution: she should get out…fast!


Note: In the longer version of the interview, she indicates that if the mayors refuse to perform the marriage ceremony, the couple can sue in accordance with the criminal laws against discrimination. The punishment is severe: up to three years in prison and a 45,000 euro fine.

Below, the minister of Justice:



Labels: , , , ,

6 Comments:

At November 11, 2012 5:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Next. Civil marriages between a pet and a human. Why not, if they are loving partners, and consent to such a union?

It goes without saying, that once the legislation is enacted, churches will be forced to conduct such marriages.

The effects of the French revolution still rumble though France. The tsunami came and went, but its detritus continues to wreak havoc in France. It has been an unmitigated for a once civilised nation.

DP111

 
At November 11, 2012 7:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the next step, then, is legalization of polygamy, is it?

And this is also why this type of "marriage" is being a topic in the US, so as to lay the ground for moving "forward" (...) to the next step, polygamy?

 
At November 11, 2012 9:15 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ Anonymous 7:58,

One reason for the move "forward" to polygamy is to prepare the way for Islam. Islam is already, as you know, powerful in France. There have been court issues over polygamy, but that could be avoided by simply legalizing the practice and ending once and for all any Christian influence over marriage.

I may be too optimistic, but I don't think it will happen.

 
At November 17, 2012 6:07 AM, Anonymous eah said...

I would say France is already pretty far gone when such a creature -- sorry, but upon seeing her foto the word fixated itself immediately in my mind -- is 'Minister of Justice' in France.

I guess the French ought to be enjoying some 'justice' right about now...

 
At November 17, 2012 6:24 PM, Blogger Robert Hagedorn said...

Google First Scandal. When you get there, go to the top of the page. Click on "Can you explain..." This is relevant to the discussion.

 
At November 18, 2012 12:59 AM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ Robert Hagedorn,

I read through The First Scandal and The First Scandal 2, and found them very thought-provoking. It is beyond my ability to comment theologically on your ideas and since I do not read ancient Hebrew, I cannot know exactly what the Bible says. Usually I rely on the KJV.

For other readers, Mr. Hagedorn proposes that the "forbidden fruit" was more than just a fruit, and more than just a metaphor for evil in the most general sense, but represents something specific, i.e. sodomy. That in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were not able to have children because they had done that which was forbidden. Only when they were evicted from the Garden could they reproduce, but even then, they were doomed to pay for their sin, as were all of their descendents, through the inevitability of death. It may be of interest to some of you. Here are two links:

http://thefirstscandal.blogspot.com/

http://2thefirstscandal.blogspot.com/

Many questions remain about homosexuality in the Bible, and those interested in the topic no doubt have their own resources.

I am only wondering if Mr. Hagedorn is saying that the first sin (which he names the "first scandal"), i.e. sodomy, is the only sin and that from it derive all other sins. Or if the "forbidden fruit" refers to other specific forms of evil. Can we know the answer? Sodomy is not forbidden by the Ten Commandments, which are, in truth, rather general instructions.






 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home