Tweet
Well, the debate on gay marriage has started in France, at last. A Green mayor decided to celebrate gay marriages in his city, as opposed to French law. There was a lengthy debate on TV today (2 hours), which gives an idea of what will the debate look like as it matures.
First, the question has been raised a few years ago, when the Socialist government created a civil union, where all couples, no matter the sexual orientation could benefit from these rights. The rights granted by the civil union, however, were inferior to those granted by marriages.
Making this civil union was not an easy task. The right almost unanimously condemned it, and a right-wing representative even thumped her bible in the Parliament (shocking!). The right-wingers have held their biggest demonstration I've ever seen.
Besides, many Socialist representatives from the backcountry dodged the issue, and simply were absent during the first vote. As such, the project was rejected at first vote, and it took the strongest party discipline to force the reticent Socialists to vote for the text a second time.
In this context, you can understand France isn't too thrilled at the idea of homosexual marriage. Yet, the debate has begun, notably fueled by Zapatero's decision of allowing it. And decidely fueled by this Green mayor's decision to celebrate gay marriages in his city.
For the positions on the issue: the Communists favor gay marriage (or so it seems, we are generally a bit slower than that); the Greens are the most trailblazing in the issue; the Socialists are uneasy and flip-flop to lose as little votes as possible; the Right-Centrists want an extended civil union, but no gay marriage. Everything further right is against gay marriage altogether.
The arguments are slightly different than in the American debate. The pro-gay-marriage have the same arguments, saying there are dire situations when one member of the unmarried couple dies, and that there is no reason for the homosexuals not to seal their happiness in marriage.
The difference is that the gay-bashers must keep quiet with their religious convictions. In France, it is not kosher to base a policy on religious convictions, and the conservatives know better than thumping their bible (the loony who did it last time was extremely unpopular even among her ranks).
As such, the arguments can't go about the "sanctity of marriage", nor to the position of the Church on the issue. More than that, religious marriages have no value for the French law; the couples are free to marry under whatever religious guise they want, but they have also to go to the city hall and be married by the mayor for the Law to recognize them. Since civil marriages are the norm for the last centuries, we don't consider marriage as a religious word.
As a result, the right-wingers are forced to be hypocrite about their religious convictions, and their main arguments are:
- heterosexual marriage has been tested and found true by all societies since millenia. Don't change it.
- Children may suffer from being raised by homosexuals
Another element worthy of attention is who wants to debate about this. In today's debate, the Socialist politician quickly weaseled out, and the only two remaining politicians were a Commie one (very strongly pro-gay-marriage) and a Chiracist one (very strongly against). The other people who talked were a psychanalist, a children's psychiatre, and a university elder. No priest, no imam, no religious figure whatsoever
My impression about it is that my country is very late compared to our neighbours, and is even monthes late compared to the epitome of evil, the US
We have very few advocates of homosexual marriage, and my gut-feeling tells me the general population is at least surprised by the idea, and many are outright hostile to it. My other impression is that the anti-gay-marriage have no valid argument against it. "Homoparentality" is a strawman, because gay marriage doesn't necessarily means adoption rights (in Belgium married homosexuals can't adopt), and the only other reason is "it has always been this way", which is not a criticism to gay marriage, so it is not a valid argument to reject the change.
Like always, the struggle for us pro-gay-marriage people will be to fight against prejudices and unsubstantiated homophobia. There seems to be nothing rational opposing gay marriage, as the Belgians finally understood (a huge majority of the Parliament ended up voting for it ).
First, the question has been raised a few years ago, when the Socialist government created a civil union, where all couples, no matter the sexual orientation could benefit from these rights. The rights granted by the civil union, however, were inferior to those granted by marriages.
Making this civil union was not an easy task. The right almost unanimously condemned it, and a right-wing representative even thumped her bible in the Parliament (shocking!). The right-wingers have held their biggest demonstration I've ever seen.
Besides, many Socialist representatives from the backcountry dodged the issue, and simply were absent during the first vote. As such, the project was rejected at first vote, and it took the strongest party discipline to force the reticent Socialists to vote for the text a second time.
In this context, you can understand France isn't too thrilled at the idea of homosexual marriage. Yet, the debate has begun, notably fueled by Zapatero's decision of allowing it. And decidely fueled by this Green mayor's decision to celebrate gay marriages in his city.
For the positions on the issue: the Communists favor gay marriage (or so it seems, we are generally a bit slower than that); the Greens are the most trailblazing in the issue; the Socialists are uneasy and flip-flop to lose as little votes as possible; the Right-Centrists want an extended civil union, but no gay marriage. Everything further right is against gay marriage altogether.
The arguments are slightly different than in the American debate. The pro-gay-marriage have the same arguments, saying there are dire situations when one member of the unmarried couple dies, and that there is no reason for the homosexuals not to seal their happiness in marriage.
The difference is that the gay-bashers must keep quiet with their religious convictions. In France, it is not kosher to base a policy on religious convictions, and the conservatives know better than thumping their bible (the loony who did it last time was extremely unpopular even among her ranks).
As such, the arguments can't go about the "sanctity of marriage", nor to the position of the Church on the issue. More than that, religious marriages have no value for the French law; the couples are free to marry under whatever religious guise they want, but they have also to go to the city hall and be married by the mayor for the Law to recognize them. Since civil marriages are the norm for the last centuries, we don't consider marriage as a religious word.
As a result, the right-wingers are forced to be hypocrite about their religious convictions, and their main arguments are:
- heterosexual marriage has been tested and found true by all societies since millenia. Don't change it.
- Children may suffer from being raised by homosexuals
Another element worthy of attention is who wants to debate about this. In today's debate, the Socialist politician quickly weaseled out, and the only two remaining politicians were a Commie one (very strongly pro-gay-marriage) and a Chiracist one (very strongly against). The other people who talked were a psychanalist, a children's psychiatre, and a university elder. No priest, no imam, no religious figure whatsoever
My impression about it is that my country is very late compared to our neighbours, and is even monthes late compared to the epitome of evil, the US
We have very few advocates of homosexual marriage, and my gut-feeling tells me the general population is at least surprised by the idea, and many are outright hostile to it. My other impression is that the anti-gay-marriage have no valid argument against it. "Homoparentality" is a strawman, because gay marriage doesn't necessarily means adoption rights (in Belgium married homosexuals can't adopt), and the only other reason is "it has always been this way", which is not a criticism to gay marriage, so it is not a valid argument to reject the change.
Like always, the struggle for us pro-gay-marriage people will be to fight against prejudices and unsubstantiated homophobia. There seems to be nothing rational opposing gay marriage, as the Belgians finally understood (a huge majority of the Parliament ended up voting for it
).
to Belgium for no adoption rights.
Comment