A powerful speech from the deputy from Martinique
On Wednesday, Bruno Nestor Azérot, a leftist deputy from Martinique delivered a major condemnation of the bill that would legalize gay marriage and adoption. Mercifully, Le Salon Beige has written out most of the text, making translation infinitely easier. The speech is impressive on many counts: he is a leftist, a member of an autonomous left-wing party called the RDM (Rassemblement democratique martiniquais) indirectly connected to the Communists, a descendant of slaves, a deputy from Martinique, theoretically embittered towards France, theoretically a partisan of the values of the Left. But Nature endowed him with reason, a sense of tradition, and the ability to recognize the dangers that will stalk a society that infringes natural law, opening the door to unthinkable violations of the nation's most deeply embedded beliefs.
(…) Overseas, the near-totality of our population is opposed to this bill that upsets all the customs and all the values on which those societies are founded. This voice must be heard and understood. We must express the opinion of our voters who do not understand what is happening here and now.
The risk is great to plunge the population into a profound disenchantment with the policies of the Government, even to provoke an irremediable moral rupture. This bill in fact does not grant a new freedom. On the contrary, it makes more fragile the delicate edifice on which our societies of Guiana and the Antilles were constructed after the abolition of slavery. There even exists, in my view, a risk of a rupture with the republican pact that has linked us for two centuries to France. This question of homosexual marriage calls for deep reflection. It is necessary to distinguish between the question of homosexuality itself and that of gay marriage: to confuse them, as some speakers do, is not honest.
Homosexuality is a practice that arises from the private sphere: it is a reality that must be taken into account and that calls for rights and privacy for those who practice it. On the other hand, gay marriage and adoption for homosexual couples arise from the public sphere in that they upset the established standards by creating new standards in terms of the family, filiation and patrimonial heritage. We cannot follow this path. Can we really speak of progress and a new freedom?
Originally, when marriage became an institution, society gave a legal framework to a natural given: the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of having a child. Now, obviously this cannot be the case with a gay marriage. It's true that today marriage is more of a "marriage for feelings" than a "marriage for procreation" as it was before: the child is no longer the goal of marriage, since persons not married, even sterile couples, can desire a child.
So the question is: should feelings be the new and sole meaning of a marriage that would be open to all men and to all women, heterosexual or homosexual? Must we thus revolutionize marriage in France and overseas at the risk of losing our fundamental values? Are we heading towards a society in which hedonistic individualism will replace our old personalist and socialist doctrines based on solidarity, liberty and equality?
Note: We see here that deputy Azérot perceives the potential law as a threat to the Socialist republic, as well as a threat to unavoidable natural law.
As a man born of an oppressed people, reduced to slavery, in which the social system refused to allow a man and a woman to have a child and to marry legitimately, in which marriage was forbidden and in which it was a conquest of freedom, I affirm the right to equality in difference and not in sameness, not in one's like, not in oneness! Indeed, in the name of equality and the refusal of discrimination, can we establish an equivalence between all couples?
On the contrary, I believe that you cannot place heterosexuality and homosexuality on the same plane: a man and a woman are not the same as two men, or two women. To establish an equivalence, a new equality, a new standard, is to deny reality. It is reestablishing oppression when you confuse gender, sex and practice. It is a diktat of thought against human vitality, against the rights of man and woman. To refuse this natural difference is to refuse sexual difference and to return to the oppression of women and their emancipated rights. (…) It is to institute a new constraint, for it will now be forbidden to make a distinction between a man and a woman, at the risk of being discriminatory.
And the child? Since two men or two women cannot procreate, what will they do? To procreate you need a man and a woman. (…) Inevitably the question of medically assisted procreation will arise (…) because the desire for a child is legitimate. However, it is not the law that denies to homosexuals a child, it is Nature. To correct this problem of sterility and incompatibility, they will have recourse to medically assisted procreation. Where is the social progress? Where is the new freedom? How can a man whose ancestors were sold and thingified ("chosifiés") not be worried by this?
Note: The connection between the fate of his ancestors and the current situation is one of "thingification", i.e., turning people into things, objects. The same concern has been expressed by many critics of Taubira's law: children are becoming objects on a political chessboard, exploited, manipulated and denatured in the name of an unwanted and dangerous ideology.
He ends with an ardent reminder of the more urgent matters the government should be tackling, including the well-being of children who need many things, such as food, shelter and a decent life, but not "marriage for everyone".
To my deep regret, but with the conviction of a man of the left, committed and free, I will not vote for this bill that is an assault on our freedoms and does not correspond to the deepest aspirations of the people, in particular those in our Overseas departments.
Most, but not all, readers at Le Salon Beige sent an enthusiastic "Bravo". Some felt that the fact he was black should not be a reason for fawning over him. One reader said that if he arrived at the truth it was by sheer accident. I don't quite agree with the negative comments this time.