Hundreds of Thousands Expected at Paris Rally for Marriage

Paris, France, Jan 9, 2013 / 04:02 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Supporters of traditional marriage expect hundreds of thousands of marchers to turn out for an upcoming national rally in opposition to President Francois Hollande’s “marriage for all” proposal.

Set to go before France’s parliament Jan. 29, the draft law proposes to redefine marriage as a union “contracted between two persons of different sex or of the same sex.”

The law would also allow “married” same-sex couples to adopt children while also replacing gender definitive titles such as “Mother” or “Father” with “Parent 1” and “Parent 2.”

Some opponents of the proposal say doing so would strip society of sexual differences and would create framework for a “new anthropological order” based on sexual preference rather than unique “sexual otherness.” Opponents also say the move would deny children the biological right of having a mother and father, and that the proposal should have been presented as a referendum to the people.

“La Manif Pour Tous” or “March For All,” a demonstration organized by French satirist Frigide Barjot – whose real name is Virginie Télenne – drew tens of thousands of supporters in the regional demonstrations held throughout France in November and December.

A modest estimate for the first national rally to be held Jan. 13 is projected to draw some 350,000 supporters, one of the organizers, Lionel Lumbroso, told CNA Jan. 4.

“The bigger we are, the more difficult it will be for the government to ignore us,” he said.

Although the “vast majority of the base is Catholic” and founder Frigide Barjot is a Catholic re-convert, Lumbroso said that the movement represents a much greater diversity of the French people because people of different faiths and political beliefs are coming together for a common goal. (Read more here.)

  • Bill S

    The intolerance comes mostly from Catholics and Muslims who have finally found something they can agree on: fighting against gay marriage.

    • SteveP

      France has PACS – a civil union which men can enter with men and women with women. France is hardly the intolerant demos you seek to condemn. In fact, if you were to read the web site, you’d see the key disagreement: Pour la filiation Père – Mère – Enfant

      “Same-sex marriage” advocates desire children to be bereft of a mother or a father as legal filiation only happens within a marriage and not in PACS if I understand correctly.

      I suspect the conversation in France has been reduced to “same-sex marriage” advocates shouting labels rather than listening to concerns and finding compromise positions.

      • Bill S

        To be honest, I don’t really know the difference between a civil union and a marriage. I am only advocating that same sex partners should be covered by health care plans and inheritance priveledges no different from straight marriage partners. I guess I am also for adoption rights, if that is the main issue. I basically am against discrimination against gays. They are people like the rest of us and have certain inalienable rights even in Europe.

        • Dave

          Bill, I don’t care about the health care plan/inheritance aspect. If that was all the gays wanted, there would have been no battle. They want the term “marriage”. That’s what the battle is about. (Also, I’d be against adoption rights for anyone except for a mother AND a father – no single parent adoption – no same-sex adoption, etc)

          • Sus

            Dave, I’m inclined to agree about single parent adoptions but I’m reluctant. I think two involved parents are best for children. As it was said in another comment, our prisons are filled with more people from single parent households than two parent households.

            I worry about all the children that have no parents because both are messed up. People don’t adopt older children as much as babies. Sometimes, a great single parent can be their saviors.

        • SteveP

          BillS: You may want to look at France’s civil union law as well as Britain’s; both countries have had same-sex civil unions for a number of years now. In both countries same-sex civil unions were, at the time, compromise positions satisfactory to all parties involved. As you read ask why these positions are not good enough for the “good as you” folks.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          Bill, health care plans are a matter of contract agreement. There is not need to change the definition of marriage or even to allow civil partnerships for this to happen. As for inheritance laws, it is entirely possible to do this right now with no changes in the law whatsoever.

          These ideas are beings used as a ruse to justify re-writing the basic contract of Western Civilization with no regard for the consequences to society as a whole.

  • FW Ken

    Thanks for the heads up. Will be watching for media coverage of this event.

  • SteveP

    If you can read French:

  • Pingback: French Morality Rally – La Manif Pour Tous – reblog from Public Catholic | The Peanut Gallery

  • Bill S

    I agree.

    As with traditional marriages, civil unions allow couples to file joint tax returns, exempt spouses from inheritance taxes, permit partners to share insurance policies, ease access to residency permits for foreigners and make partners responsible for each other’s debts. Concluding a civil union requires little more than a single appearance before a judicial official, and ending one is even easier.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Bill, I don’t know about other states, but here in Oklahoma inheritances taxes have been almost done away with. There is no reason to re-define marriage for this. That is nonsense. As for making partner’s responsible for each other’s debts, that can also be handled contractually. Joint tax returns actually raise your taxes over what you would pay if you were filing jointly because the two incomes are combined and then taxed at a higher rate than they would be if they were taxed at the rate of their lower, separate income. This is called “the marriage tax.”

      None of these things offer benefits to anyone that would justify re-defining something as fundamental to society as marriage.

      • Bill S

        The people whom this affects the most are the gays. I’m not gay. I have a gay son but he shows no interest in taking on a partner. I would say he is simply celibate. Hypothetically, living in Massachusetts, he could choose to marry at any time. This is all good with me. I resent the Church for trying to make it seem otherwise. It’s all good.

        • SteveP

          BillS: You may recall the news when NY State’s Senate voted on the “same-sex marriage” legislation – a state senator changed is vote from “nay” to “aye” for, as he relayed, his “gay” nephew would not speak to him. I can see a father fearing the silent treatment from his son just as an uncle feared the silent treatment from his nephew.

          Unfortunately, this is the fruit of the age: we have taught and been taught that love can be withdrawn when, in fact, “love is stern as death.” Divorce, especially no-fault divorce, highlights–to children especially–that love is mutable, conditional, a reward for desirability. What a pity.

          Parents who love their children subordinate permissiveness to that love: one does not let one’s child – whatever age – play with matches on the bed even if they threaten a sullen silent treatment if you take away the matches. Parents who acquiesce to the silent treatment acknowledge that love is mutable, giving the child what they desire in exchange for that child’s love.

          O that the species would progress in love–that would be good.

          • Sus

            Steve, I hear what you are saying about permissiveness love. I have a 9 year old that I woke up this morning so he can start on his 200 lines of “I will not be mean to my sister”. I would have rather let him sleep but he was mean so it’s my job to curb his behavior. I do question you on the silent treatment because that isn’t what I’m getting right now. I’m hearing that fingers are going to fall off!

            With something as sensitive as being gay, I know I’d have a hard time. It would feel like I was rejecting my child because they are gay if I were to say the Church is right and their feelings are wrong. It’s complicated and hard to explain my feelings in the combox.

            • SteveP

              Sus – I think I might understand: love is not always easy and, at times, does not feel good to oneself or the one one loves.

              I hope you get some silence today and, at some point in the future, a “you love me; I love you too” from your son.

  • Bill S

    SteveP: nothing you have said has any applicability to me. You are sadly mistaken if you think I am for gay marriage because my son is gay or that I should admonish him in some way.

    Gays are gaining acceptance and Catholics (some, not all) will be the last holdouts with maybe Muslims.

    • SteveP

      BillS: Of course I would not have implied that you would engage in something so crass, so old-fashioned, so biblical as loyalty to your kin. I understand you are motivated solely to be on “the right side of history.”

      See you at Liturgy. Until then may God bless you and keep you.