1. Marriage « for all » ?
Marriage is always a choice for couples. As current wedding statistics show, many choose a different way of living their relationship, such as a PACS (a type of civil union) or cohabitation. To recognize this diversity of life choices for both heterosexual and homosexual couples is to recognize marriage as a particular and demanding choice, which has no pretension to be universal. As society has progressed in its acceptance of homosexual couples for what they are, so it must recognize marriage for what it is.
2. Fighting against discriminations does not justify « marriage for all »
The penal code prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is a pride and an honor for the Republic. We hate homophobia and discrimination. However, it is just that the law make distinctions between different types of couples with respect to familial stability. That is the point of republican marriage. The « differences in treatment » lawfully recognized in this context are not discriminations, but serve the well-being of children and families.
3. Marriage is not a consecration of love
The latin word matrimonium, from which « marriage » derives, means « protection of the mother ». It is not the recognition of love between two people, but an institution which protects the dignity of parents and children, and which regulates parentage. Even though the ways to live one’s marriage are myriad, it is during the townhall ceremony that a couple receives their family register. The meaning is clear: though every family is not founded on marriage, marriage founds the family! That is why there are different advantages for married and other couples: married couples contribute to the replenishment of society and the education of its youngest members.
4. The implicit recognition of a right to children
Through the « adoption for all » project, the State recognizes implicitly a « right to children. » It is a complete inversion of the logic of the institution of marriage: one would start from the impossibility to have children – without it stemming from a pathological source, as in the case of infertile couples – to create a new model, founded on the break between parentage and education. In doing this, we side with individual desires and the projects of adults rather than on the side of the children welcomed in families. The effects of such a decision on these children are still impossible to discern: the studies done, whatever their conclusions, only concern small groups! This same logic underpins the demands for a right to adoption, and, soon, a right to medically assisted procreation and surrogacy for homosexual couples: The right to a child, « battery-farmed », that can be raised in the denial of man-woman complementarity, because this child is the answer to an education project based on love.
5. Wreaking havoc with adoption
Many supporters of the law object that every adoption is based on dissociating parentage and education. In reality, adoption is an answer to a difficult situation in which a child cannot be welcomed and raised by those who gave her life. The deep meaning of adoption is not to address some right for couples, but to make amends for the harm endured by the child, who was deprived of her parents by the vagaries of life, such as death, separation, or poverty. Adoption by married couples offers the advantage of a symbolic similarity with the couple that gave birth to the child. Adoption is meant to give a family to a child, not to give a child to adults, whether they be heterosexuals or homosexuals!
6. Do words have meaning?
Speaking of « parents » brings up an ambiguity. Parentage (« parenté ») is the best-known and most-used concept. It refers to social parentage, coinciding with biological parentage, or compensating the lack of recognition of biological parentage with plenary adoption by a different-sex couple, thus symbolically and analogically replacing the parentage that the child lost. « Parentalité » (« parentality ») is a neologism dating back to the end of the 90s. It refers to the fact of being a parent in its legal, political, socio-economic, cultural, and institutional aspects. This word is concomitant with the concept of « social » father or mother, which emerged in the context of both blended families and homoparenting families. With plenary adoption, the current bill will not ameliorate « parentality » as it already exists, but replace parentage with « parentality » for all couples: every mention of the word « parent » in the Civil Code will now be based on the notion of « parentality ».
7. A consecration of gender ideology?
Gender theory was born in the US at the end of the 80s. It posits the superiority of « gender », a social construct freely accepted or refused by the subjects, over sex, fruit of an always arbitrary biology. Far from being simply a tool of analysis, gender ideology is a true system, where reality must become asexual, a system which would confine us in stable roles – determinisms – so as to make room for the freedom of choosing and recombining gender. It would thus be impossible to consider that man-woman alterity has an intransigent basis, or that the roles of father and mother are linked to masculinity and femininity. Everything is interchangeable, and that is the object of this so-called liberation. Taubira’s law is steeped in this destructive theory, and the Minister has showed this clearly during the debates at the National Assembly by proclaiming her goal: « rescue children from the determinism of the family ».
8. What do the studies show?
The studies often cited to support such and such an opinion must be systematically observed with detachment: questions asked, samples chosen, persons chosen to conduct the study, sponsors… Today, many of the available studies were conducted in order to justify homoparenting. Often, they are sponsored by LGBT organizations. On the other side of the debate, a study such as Mark Regnerus’s, which can also doubtlessly be criticized, was conducted with larger samples, with a longer time frame, with an academic perspective. When voices were raised to point out possible blunders, Regnerus agreed to clarify…without changing the result: for children, being raised by a different-sex couple is not the same as being raised by a same-sex couple.
9. Good usage of democracy?
Though every modern democracy uses a system of representation, there are also ways for the people to make themselves heard directly when they believe that their representatives have not debated properly or long enough. It is notably the point of petitions and demonstrations. They are a means of expression recognized as such in our republican vision. The disdain with which the millions of demonstrators of January 13 and March 24, and the 700 000 signers of the Economic, Social and Environmental Council petition were treated requires a strong response.
10. Is it the direction of History?
One hears both in the media and in the speeches of many politicians that this reform would be heading in the « direction of History« , in that History would be a lenghty progression towards the triumph of a self-centered individual left to his own devices in a form of indeterminacy completely foreign to true freedom. History does not have a pre-determined direction more powerful than what men make of it. That is why « liberty » is the first word of our republican motto!
PDF in French here.
A Special « Mariage pour tous » Edition
L’1visible summarizes the current debates in a special edition. Featuring the spokesmen of La Manif Pour Tous, in-depth studies by specialists…
Spread it around!