Christian Persecution: Proposed French Gay Marriage Law Tramples Freedom of Conscience

Critics fear that a proposed French law that would institute same-sex marriage would also interfere with the rights of conscience of individual citizens.

A LifeSiteNews article says,

There will be no allowances made for conscientious or religious objection in upcoming French legislation instituting “gay marriage,” the French minister of Justice, Christiane Taubira, revealed in an interview today …”
She further acknowledged that ‘the proposed law is described as “a social and political revolution.

Holland is planning to introduce similar legislation in early 2013.

More details from the LifeSiteNew article below :

PARIS, September 12, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – There will be no allowances made for conscientious or religious objection in upcoming French legislation instituting “gay marriage,” the French minister of Justice, Christiane Taubira, revealed in an interview today.

Speaking to the mainstream Catholic daily La Croix, Taubira gave the broad outlines of the same-sex “marriage” bill to be presented by the government by the end of October. That Taubira chose the quasi-official newspaper of the French Catholic bishops conference is being seen as a strategic move to head off Catholic and other religious objections.

She acknowledged in the interview that the change would constitute a “societal and legal revolution.”

The socialist Hollande government, elected in May, is wasting no time fulfilling its promise to bring the legislation forward. Most observers expected that the bill would not be introduced before the beginning of 2013, allowing the defenders of traditional marriage some time to organize their response after the politically sluggish summer months.

Taubira said that the bill will legalize same-sex “marriage” and adoption by homosexual “spouses,” giving them most of the same legal rights and obligations attached to marriage. It does not include, however, access to artificial procreation, including artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization. Neither does it legalize surrogate motherhood.

Also, the legal “presumption of fatherhood” in which the law designates the husband in a marriage as the legal father of any child born to the couple, would not be applied to homosexual partners. In a same-sex “marriage,” one partner would have to adopt the biological child of the other to obtain parental rights.

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

Some believe that the restrictions are intended to lessen opposition to the bill among traditionalists in parliament and the concessions may indicate that support for the scheme is less enthusiastic than expected, even among socialist members. It is thought likely that any restrictions included in the bill will be overturned later by the European Court of Human Rights.

In a decision involving a French lesbian wanting to adopt the child of her partner in a civil union, Gas v. France, the ECHR affirmed in March of this year that France had the right to deny the adoption in the interest of the child as long as homosexual couples had the same rights as heterosexual couples in the same legal situation. Once complete marriage equivalence is established, this situation would no longer apply. In addition, where heterosexual couples have access to artificial procreation and preimplantation genetic diagnosis, it will be argued that homosexuals cannot be excluded.

Christiane Taubira told La Croix that “discussions” have started with proponents and opponents of the bill. Included in these, she said, are several representatives of the association of 36,000 French mayors who officiate at civil marriage ceremonies. But these discussions will not change the government’s stance, Taubira said.

“We are in a state of law; the civil code will be modified, it will be imperative for everyone, including mayors.”

Resistance to the bill will also be hampered by the country’s hate crime laws which have been broadened to include “discrimination” on the grounds of sex and “sexual orientation” and “sexual identity.”

The goal of instituting “same-sex marriage” is rooted in the Left’s ideological notion of “absolute equality” in all matters, a cornerstone of socialist political theory. For this reason, it is believed that the current French government will in reality tolerate no opposition to the bill. (Read more here.)

The New Morality: I am so important to me. Nobody else matters.

Mark Shea wrote about it earlier this week. I’m going to write about it in the future.

“It” is the galloping sense of entitlement of the “I Am So Important To Me” class. You know: The ones who feel free to re-write any book, from history to literature to the Bible to suit their passing fancy of what pleases them today.

Evidently, one of the many books the I Am So Important to Me class wants to re-write is the biology text books we’ve all had to study. They’ve created a whole new label to support their demand for this: Biological Injustice.

You read that right. According to an October 2 article in the Huffington Post, Lesbian Baby-Making for the Entitled Generation, at least some people feel that biology itself should be put on trial for the “injustice” of not being able to make babies with another person of the same sex. They are counting on our burgeoning scientific industry to provide them with the means to overwrite the trifling objections of mother nature and allow them to produce babies from same-sex couples at will.

Mark Shea’s article Children are Not Fashion Accessories for Narcissists, discusses the cultural and social impact of “a culture in which consent is the sole criterion of the good.”

As I said, I’ll be writing about this in more detail later. I think it’s enough for today to just let you read these two articles and ponder, like Lincoln, whither we are tending.

Lesbian Baby-Making for the Entitled Generation reads in part:

I want to have babies the way straight people do.

I don’t mean that in a ’70s euphemism “makin’-babies” kind of way. What I mean is that I want the ease, the convenience, the — dare I say it — naturalness that straight people have when starting a family. I want both the simple beauty of two people loving each other so much that they’d like to see more of the other in the world, and I want that simple beauty to be translated into scientific terms of fairness: chromosomes and DNA given in equal amounts from two parents.

The attitude I have always taken to having a baby with another woman has been this: “It’s not fair! It’s so hard! Why me?”

I am a total brat about what I consider a biological injustice. Did you just hear me say that? Biological injustice? That doesn’t even make sense!

If I were a logical, realistic person I would likely be happy with flipping through sperm donor catalogs, or picking a foreign country to adopt from, or begging my gay male friends to consider jizzing into a warm bowl for me. But I am not logical, and I am not ready to accept the realities of my sexuality compounded by my body’s abilities with a female partner.

Why can’t my girlfriend and I have a baby that shares our DNA? Why can’t an egg from each of us be scrambled up and sprinkled with sperm? It seems so easy! Try harder scientists! Make this a priority. (Read more here.)

Marriage is a Mess and Homosexuals Didn’t Do It

I support traditional marriage. I have a public track record and the scars to prove it.

I voted to put an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution on the ballot that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. I also authored and passed a resolution memorializing Congress to begin hearings on an amendment to the United States Constitution doing the same thing. That is as much as I can do to support traditional marriage from my elected position.

It’s not a complicated issue to me, and it has almost nothing to do with what marriage is not. It’s about what marriage is. What marriage is begins with the law. Marriage under the law is and should continue to be a union freely entered into by one man and one woman. But legal definitions are just the scaffolding we use to support the social structures of how we order our lives. The actual edifice, the reality of marriage as it is lived, is something much more complex and important than that legal definition can impart.

We focus our national attention on the definition of marriage under the law. We wear out our keyboards writing about it and revile one another over our positions on it. But despite the accusations and counter-accusations that season our debate, we ignore the home truths of marriage in this country today. The truth is, marriage has been a mess for quite some time. And homosexuals weren’t the ones who messed it up.

Homosexuals didn’t set off the epidemic of divorce in this country. Homosexuals didn’t create the millions of feral children who spend most of their time alone, raising themselves on video games, drugs and interactions with their peers. Homosexuals don’t cheat on our spouses. Homosexuals don’t break into our homes and yell and curse at our families. They aren’t the cause of the rising number of unwed births and the global pandemic of abortion. We did these things. Marriage is a mess and it was heterosexuals who messed it up.

We insist that the legal definition of marriage should be a union between one man and one woman. But we behave as if it says that marriage is a union between one man and one woman at a time.

I know that is tender for many people. I know that divorce cuts people in half and leaves them with broken hearts and shattered lives. I know that some marriages are so bitter, destructive and even violent that they have to end. I know that even if you want to hold the marriage together, sometimes your spouse won’t. I know all this, and it gives me pause writing about these things. I don’t want to pick at half-healed wounds and start them bleeding again.

But the truth is that serial monogamy is NOT monogamy. Serial marriage is not marriage between one man and one woman. And heterosexuals, especially Christian heterosexuals, have a responsibility before God to care for and raise their children, cherish their spouses and build enduring stable homes which can nurture a true family. Heterosexuals who have failed to do this are the root cause of most of the social problems we face today. They, not homosexuals, are the ones who have brought marriage to the sorry state it is in now.

I have a public track record of supporting traditional marriage. I’ve got the scars to prove it. But I think that supporting traditional marriage, especially traditional marriage in the Christian sense, means more than being against same-sex marriage. I think that as Christians we are required to look past what we’re against and find what we are for. It isn’t enough for Christians to be against same-sex marriage. It certainly isn’t enough to do as some have done and whip people up into a rage and then cash in on that rage to advance your political career. That is just cheap demagoguery.

Leadership, especially true Christian leadership, mandates that we don’t just get people worked up against something. We have to lead them forward to something. In the case of marriage, we should be for true Christian marriage and we should live that kind of marriage in our own lives. Christians must be FOR marriage as a loving, giving, living institution that cocoons young children in a world of stability, positive discipline and love so that they can grow up and create loving homes of their own.

The bond between husband and wife, as the Bible says, makes them “one flesh.” This doesn’t refer just, or even primarily, to the physical union of marriage. Sex, apart from this bond of love, is a physical act. But true marriage is a spiritual bond. The deep, life bond of trust and mutual dependence that is marriage nurtures everyone within its reach. Marriage creates not just family, but home. I  do not mean a building where you sleep. Christian marriage creates home that is a refuge from the coldness of modern life.

This isn’t a hypothetical for me. My home and my husband are the living sanctuaries of my life. I could not endure the pressures of being a Public Catholic and all the controversy and criticism that engenders if I wasn’t able to go to my house, shut the door, and be Home.

Marriage is the progenitor of life, family, emotional safety and abiding peace in this life. It is a sacrament, given by Our Lord, to enable us to walk through life together and not alone.

If we are going to “save marriage” in this country, we certainly do need to resist efforts to alter its legal definition. But we also need to begin living the sacramental love and fidelity of marriage with our spouses and within our homes. We need to do this because it is what God intended for us. Marriage is His blessing on our lives and through it we can become blessings to our whole society.

Did Alderman Moreno Force Chick-Fil-A to Stop Giving Money to Focus on the Family?

Did Chick-Fil-A yield to pressure and stop its donations to Focus on the Family? 

This article is so full of double-speak, that I can’t decide.

Normally, when I read something that goes around in circles like this does, I just assume that whoever wrote it is trying to make it sound like they didn’t do whatever it is that they really did do. But I so hope I’m wrong about this that I can’t let myself believe that.

This issue goes beyond the question of same-sex marriage. It is about freedom of speech. I don’t care if Chick-Fil-A donates money to Focus on the Family or not. The issue for me is their right to not only do so, but to say that they do so without government officials taking vengeance on them.

If someone can be bullied into backing away from a legal action that they clearly want to take because they have been attacked over being honest about it, that has a chilling effect on everyone’s freedom of speech. When a government official uses their power (as all the accounts about this seem to say) to coerce them to do this, that crosses a serious line about government interference in freedom of speech.

Dan Daly, the head of Focus on the Family, tries to defend Chick-Fil-A. But he never specifically says that they are continuing to donate money to his organization. That’s what sounds like double-speak.

The question: Did Alderman Moreno extract a promise from Chick-Fil-A to cease making donations to Focus on the Family in exchange for allowing them to build a new franchise in Chicago? If he did, I think he needs to be removed from office; not for his beliefs about gay marriage, but because of what amounts to a deliberate and flagrant abuse of power and attack on our American freedom of speech that no American official should be allowed to engage in.

If he did not do this, then someone needs to make that far more clear than this article does.

The articles says in part:

September 20, 2012 Print
chickfilasign

Chick-fil-A Sets the Record Straight

by Karla Dial

In response to media reports that Chick-fil-A has agreed to stop making charitable donations to groups like Focus on the Family, the company today released a statement to set the record straight.

Contrary to reports first made by the gay-activist group The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA) on Tuesday and later picked up by mainstream media outlets, Chick-fil-A and its charitable-giving arm, the WinShape Foundation, did not agree to stop making donations to groups that support the biblical definition of marriage in exchange for being allowed to open a franchise in Chicago.

“For many months now, Chick-fil-A’s corporate giving has been mischaracterized,” executives said in today’s statement. “And while our sincere intent has been to remain out of this political and social debate, events from Chicago this week have once again resulted in questions around our giving. For that reason, we want to provide some context and clarity around who we are, what we believe and our priorities in relation to corporate giving.

“A part of our corporate commitment is to be responsible stewards of all that God has entrusted to us. Because of this commitment, Chick-fil-A’s giving heritage is focused on programs that educate youth, strengthen families and enrich marriages, and support communities. We will continue to focus our giving in those areas. Our intent is not to support political or social agendas.

“As we have stated, the Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators.”

According to a TCRA press release issued Tuesday, “In meetings the company executives clarified that they will no longer give to anti-gay organizations.”

That was the stipulation gay activists, led by Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno, made earlier this summer, after Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy said in interviews that he and his family are “guilty as charged” of holding biblical views on marriage. Moreno vowed to block the construction of the franchise unless the company changed its beliefs and stopped supporting “hate groups.” Moreno relented to the construction this week, spinning Chick-fil-A’s statement as a victory for his side — despite the fact that it was made before he denied the permit.

Moreover, many news agencies reported that Chick-fil-A had specifically agreed not to give money to Focus on the Family or the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). NOM said Wednesday it has never received money from the foundation. Focus on the Family has.

Some people were quick to criticize the 66-year-old chicken chain for “caving” to political pressure. Focus on the Family President Jim Daly said that’s not what happened.

“Dan and Bubba Cathy are my Christian brothers and good friends. They and their company have long shared Focus on the Family’s commitment to helping build strong and thriving families — and they have in no way deviated from that deeply held and biblically inspired passion while working with the city of Chicago to open Chick-fil-A restaurants there,” Daly said. (Read more here.)

UPDATE 

A more recent article from USA Today adds a few details, but clarifies little. It does say that Chick-Fil-A held a benefit for the Marriage and Family Foundation, which is a tantalizing hint. Time, hopefully, will tell. Here is part of the new article:

Sep 20, 2012

Chick-fil-A’s ‘cave’ stirs new backlash 

Updated 5h 20m ago

 

Matt Reid, St. Joseph News-Press, via AP

 

News reports that Chick-fil-A had pledged to stop contributing money to anti-gay organizations and to avoid political and social debates has generated a backlash, with supporters accusing the Bible-based fast-food chain of caving in.

Update at 8:40 p.m. ET: Chick-fil-A has released a new statement on the controversy and included the company’s “Who We Are” corporate principles, which have been cited inprevious coverage.

The four-paragraph statement does not clarify whether the company has pledged to stop contributing money to anti-gay organizations, as a Chicago-based gay-rights group reportedTuesday.

For many months now, Chick-fil-A’s corporate giving has been mischaracterized. And while our sincere intent has been to remain out of this political and social debate, events from Chicago this week have once again resulted in questions around our giving.

For many months now, Chick-fil-A’s corporate giving has been mischaracterized. And while our sincere intent has been to remain out of this political and social debate, events from Chicago this week have once again resulted in questions around our giving. For that reason, we want to provide some context and clarity around who we are, what we believe and our priorities in relation to corporate giving.

A part of our corporate commitment is to be responsible stewards of all that God has entrusted to us. Because of this commitment, Chick-fil-A’s giving heritage is focused on programs that educate youth, strengthen families and enrich marriages, and support communities. We will continue to focus our giving in those areas. Our intent is not to support political or social agendas.

As we have stated, the Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect â?? regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators.

Earlier this week, before the reports of the alleged policy change, Chick-fil-A’s WinShape Foundation held a benefit for the Marriage and Family Foundation, which has worked against same-sex marriage.

The Atlanta-based company, which wants to expand in Chicago and elsewhere, has not responded to media requests to clarify its policies.

Original post: Chick-fil-A’s apparent decision to stop giving money to anti-gay marriage groups and not engage in social or political debates has sparked another heated discussion — and new backlash — on its Facebook page from those who say the company has “caved in.”

The report of the company’s about-face comes from a Chicago rights lobby, The Civil Rights Agenda, that says Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno has confirmed that the fast-food company will no longer give money to anti-gay organizations and has clarified in an internal document that it will “treat every person equally, regardless of sexual orientation.” (Read more here.)

African American Pastors Form Group to Defend Marriage

On the eve of President Obama’s really big show in Charlotte, a group of African American pastors announced that they are forming a group to defend traditional marriage. The African American vote is crucial to the President’s re-election chances. I believe that the President will sweep the African American vote. The question is whether or not they will turn out with the same enthusiasm — and numbers — as they did four years ago.

President Obama’s announcement earlier this year that he now favors same-sex marriage and the Democratic Party’s inclusion of a plank supporting same-sex marriage in the Party platform may play a role in this situation.

What effect, if any, all of this will have on the outcome of the election remains to be seen.

New Christian group created to celebrate, defend marriage

By Michelle Bauman
William Owens, Jr., speaks about marriage during a press conference Aug. 29, 2012 in Tampa, Fla.

.- Pastors from across the country have come together to form an organization celebrating the important role of marriage and encouraging Christians to take action in support of it.

“For us to remain silent is for us to give consent to the belief that traditional marriage can be redefined,” said William Owens, Jr., founder of We Celebrate Marriage.

“This is not a time in our generation to be silent.” (Read more here.)

It’s Eat a Chicken Sandwich for Freedom of Speech Day !

It’s eat a chicken sandwich for freedom of speech day. Enjoy.

I got the idea for this card from a very similar one I saw on Tumblr. If I find that card again, I’ll give you the person’s name.

The Search for Brad Pitt’s Spine

An elderly woman sent a letter to the editor in Springfield Missouri. The letter was published in the local newspaper.

That would — and should — have been the end of it. But the internet wolf pack locked onto this elderly woman and her little letter. They did this because she has a famous son. Brad Pitt’s name in a headline is always good for a few extra hits from the search engines. Driving up traffic to their web sites by whatever means is how these people make their money. It seems that the trashier they behave, the more money they make. So, the pack went on the hunt for Mrs Pitt.

I have not read Mrs Pitt’s letter. I don’t intend to. First, I am not from Springfield Missouri, so what an elderly woman writes in a letter to the editor of a local Springfield newspaper doesn’t matter to me. Second, I am not writing this post to comment on what she said. I don’t care what she said. I am writing this post to defend her right to say it.

Mrs Pitt has evidently run afoul of some of the internet sewer dwellers who seem to believe that anyone who says anything they disagree with is fair game for threats and character assassination. According to reports that I have read, this lady has been subjected to all manner of attack, up to and including death threats. She is evidently feeling besieged. The sewer dwellers have won their victory. They have effectively intimidated another person who disagrees with them into giving up the exercise of her right to free speech.

This isn’t anything new. Character assassination and verbal terror tactics have become the norm in what passes for public debate in this country. What is surprising is that Mr Pitt has responded to these attacks on his mother with silence.

Mr Pitt is a world-famous public figure who has not been shy about giving his opinion in other areas. His silence in this instance of the public trashing of his mother looks far too much like assent. What kind of man (or woman) would allow anyone to attack their mother this way and do nothing?

From what I’ve read, Mrs Pitt made some sort of comments about the current Presidential race and about same-sex marriage. Based on what I’ve read about her comments on the one hand and Mr Pitt’s stated views on politics and this social issue on the other, I am guessing that he does not agree with his mother’s viewpoint on these things.

My question is, What does that matter? She’s his mother. The issue isn’t whether or not they agree, it’s whether or not he’s man enough to stand up for his mother when she is being attacked and abused.

I don’t know of  a gay man — and I know several of them — who would sit by and let someone attack his mother like this. It wouldn’t matter what she had said.

I wish that both Mr Pitt and the responsible members of the gay community would take a stand against this kind of outrageous attack on people who are merely exercising their right to free speech. Mrs Pitt’s letter was published, presumably with her permission, in a newspaper. That makes everything she said open to equally public disagreement and debate. It does not open her or anyone else up for personal attacks, filthy name-calling and death threats.

I do not see how a movement that is based on working for the human rights of a group of people can justify advancing that work by attacking the human rights of other people.

I have no quarrel with homosexual people advocating for the things they believe. I also have no quarrel with them working within the electoral system and the courts in support of those beliefs. It doesn’t matter whether or not I agree with all their goals. That’s how we do things in this country.

The rights to petition the government, vote and organize, freedom of speech and access to the courts belong to every American. The Constitution applies to every single one of us; whether we are gay rights activists, or an elderly woman writing a letter to the editor in Springfield Missouri.

Anyone who tries to effect social change will encounter disagreement and resistance. If you can’t accept that and answer these disagreements, counter this resistance, in a civil and intelligent manner, then it makes it look like your cause is without real merit.

I hope that responsible leaders in this movement will make a statement of non-support when followers of their movement do something so wrong as these attacks on Mrs. Pitt. I think they should do this out of respect for the basic human rights of all people, including those who disagree with them, and also out of respect for their own movement and the things they say they believe.

As for Mr Pitt, my only advice to him is,  grow a spine.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X