Features

Why France's gay marriage debate has started to look like a revolution

The bitter battle over gay marriage is a symptom of a broken political system

27 April 2013

9:00 AM

27 April 2013

9:00 AM

Paris: Revolutions are often sparked by an unexpected shock to an already weakened regime. As commentators in France remark not only on the crisis engulfing François Hollande’s government but also on the apparent death-rattle of the country’s entire political system, it could be that his flagship policy of legalising gay marriage — or rather, the gigantic public reaction against it, unique in Europe — will be the last straw that breaks the Fifth -Republic’s back.

Opposition to the bill has electrified the middle classes, the young and much of provincial France. On Sunday 24 March, in the freezing cold, the 4km stretch from the Arche de la Défense to the Arc de Triomphe was full of people protesting against the bill. On 13 January, also chilly, the Champ de Mars was similarly crammed. When Johnny Hallyday or the World Cup got crowds like that, people talked of two million. But the police, evidently acting under political orders, have claimed that both demonstrations — which are without doubt the largest public movements in French history — garnered a few hundred thousand at most. Credible accusations surfaced in Le Figaro on Monday night that the film taken from police helicopters on 24 March and released by the Prefecture has been manipulated to reduce the apparent numbers of demonstrators.

Such lies are the sign of a rotten regime. Outbursts such as that of Elie Peillon, the son of the Minister of Education, who on 13 January tweeted that ‘those gits’ demonstrating should be publicly hanged, make Marie-Antoinette’s seem delicate by comparison. Had the mobilisation in Paris taken place in Tahrir Square, the world’s media would be unanimous that a ‘French spring’ was about to sweep away an outdated power structure, especially since the demonstrations (including the daily ones held throughout last week, which culminated in a massive impromptu rally of 270,000 people on Sunday afternoon) are attended by an overwhelming number of people in their late teens and early twenties.

By the same token, had the Moscow security forces tear-gassed children and mothers — as the CRS did on the Champs Elysées on 24 March — or had they dragged away by their necks youngsters who were peacefully sitting on the lawn after the demo — as the riot police did on the night of 18 April — then the worldwide moral policemen on CNN would be frantically firing their rhetorical revolvers. Such repression would be interpreted as a sign that the regime was desperate. Indeed, had the Ukrainian police removed the ‘tent village’ which formed in central Kiev at the time of the Orange Revolution in 2004 — as the Paris police bundled more than 60 anti-gay marriage campers into detention on the night of 14 April — then one suspects that Nato tanks would have rolled over the Dnieper to their rescue. A dozen people were even booked by the police for wearing anti-gay-marriage T-shirts in the Luxembourg gardens, where they were having a picnic, on the grounds that this constituted an unauthorised political assembly.

[Alt-Text]


The government may have rushed the gay marriage law through parliament on Tuesday to try to take the wind out of the sails of this mass movement, but police paranoia of this kind is surely a sign that the French political system is terminally sick. The historical background certainly confirms this. For more than 30 years, every French government has lost every election. With a single exception, you have to be over 50 today to have voted in the last election, in 1978, when the incumbent majority held on to power: Nicolas Sarkozy managed to get a conservative majority re-elected in 2007 only because he profiled himself, dishonestly, as a new broom and as a rebel against the roi fainéant, his former mentor Jacques Chirac. Add to this the fact that in 2005 the referendum on the European constitution produced a ‘no ‘vote — that is, a disavowal of the entire political establishment — and you are confronted with a bitter reality: the French electorate hates its politicians and takes every chance to vote against them.

François Hollande’s election last May was therefore not a victory but only his predecessor’s defeat. He was elected with 48 per cent of the votes, if you include spoilt and invalid ballots, and 39 per cent of the registered voters. His election was especially unimpressive considering the widespread revulsion at Sarkozy’s personal bling and at his betrayal of his own voters. But even so, Hollande’s catastrophic poll rating has broken all records. When in March he became the most unpopular president after ten months in office, his rating stood at 31 per cent. Now it is 26 per cent.

The immediate cause of the crisis lies in the dramatic alienation of sections of the electorate who voted for Hollande in May. The overseas populations of the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean, and regions like Brittany where the left is as deeply entrenched as in Scotland, are in revolt over gay marriage: the largest French daily, Ouest-France, based in Rennes, has turned against Hollande on the issue. In addition, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the crypto-communist who ensured Hollande’s election by throwing his support behind him immediately after the first round last May, has now violently abandoned him, albeit over economic policy.

But the deeper explanation for the strength of feeling lies in the fact that, in French law, marriage is indissociable from the right to start a family. There is currently no gay adoption in France and no access for gays or lesbians to medically assisted procreation. These have been legalised to general indifference in Britain, but they are regarded as unacceptable by many in France and as an intolerable attack on the rights of the child. The marches against gay marriage are therefore really marches in favour of the traditional family — and in favour of that ‘normality’ which Hollande promised to bring to presidency but which he has betrayed in favour of the interests of a tiny minority. (Sunday’s demonstration in favour of gay marriage at the Bastille garnered but a few thousand militants.) Even Le Monde admits that normally unpolitical people have been politicised by this issue, to their own and everyone else’s surprise.  The 50 per cent of French people polled who say they are in favour of gay marriage evidently do not know what is in the new law, because 56 to 58 per cent say they oppose gay adoption..

The issue, in other words, has touched a nerve in France, a country divided between a globalist elite and a conservative nation, part of which still believes in the family and the state. Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s philandering while head of the IMF revolted many French people precisely because such behaviour seemed to embody the deep link between international economic liberalism and moral collapse. Hollande’s economic orthodoxy (austerity to save the euro) coupled with his support for gay marriage seems but a softer version of the same phenomenon — as does the recent and severely damaging revelation that the former Budget Minister had a secret bank account in Switzerland (and then lied about it).

The disillusionment with Hollande is also acute because this ‘socialist’ President is such an obvious copy of his ‘conservative’ predecessor (just as all presidents since Giscard have been carbon copies of him). Hollande, who campaigned against austerity before the election only to introduce it immediately after, recalls Sarkozy, who was elected with the votes of the radical right only to appoint prominent leftists as ministers in his Blairite ‘big tent’ government. The military adventure in Mali is Hollande’s Libya.

This similarity between the two men throws into the sharpest possible light the systemic crisis of which the endless changes of governmental majority are the symptom: France, like the rest of Europe and much of the industrial world, is governed by one single political superclass which straddles not only nation-states but also left and right. EU politicians spend more time seeing each other than their own voters, while the range of policies actually at stake at any election narrows with each one. This is why voters systematically reject their leaders, and this is why the young have been so massively present in the marches. Such a situation cannot last.

John Laughland is Director of Studies at the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation in Paris.

More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.


Show comments
  • kyleyoder

    I can’t imagine the media being this kind to the United States had such brutal violence erupted after Iowa legalized same sex marriage four years ago. I do recall the BBC reporting on Massachusetts legalizing same sex marriage in 2004, and the British reporter was flabbergasted that there were no riots or attacks against homosexuals. She concluded that Americans were too consumed with the World Series. LOL!

    • James

      : legalised.

      • kyleyoder

        Legalized. Americans won the revolution, replaced the UK as the world’s dominant power, and earned the right to change English language. It’s called progress. Deal with it.

        • James

          Colonisation actually. Perhaps it takes many moons to learn proper English – progress depends on basic understanding capable brain functionality. However, maybe you just find it difficult to be progressive full stop – ever since we colonised sugar manufacturing and distribution, Americans have been addicted and unable to progress or deal with it. You are our real life jelly babies: soft, full of sugar and extremely artificial.

          • Picquet

            The z was first in English…

          • James

            But only in a few words and it has been updated for some time now.

        • chris_xxxx

          There’s a reason why it’s called English and not Americanish. If you want to change it for the US then that’s your option but it’s not proper English.

        • kyleyoder

          But in the meantime, it is “tolerant” europe that is becoming unglued by something that even Americans have not lashed out against so violently. In fact, Americans rarely do, despite the stereotypes. Learn something from Iowa and Maine, Nigel.

  • mvasseur

    Yes, the French political system is broken, but I am not sure that these demos are the best proof of it. Quite frankly: quoting the tweet of a teenage boy as a proof that the system is rotten, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel! And the conspiracy theory about the pictures being doctored has been thoroughly debunked, it is not “credible”. The “young” are overwhelmingly in favour of gay marriage. Contrary to what you say, anyone can adopt in France, gay or straight, since 1966. It is just that single people and straight couples can adopt, but not, until now, gay couples. So please John, get your facts straight (!!!), and don’t be such a drama queen.

    • buschbapti

      The conspiracy theory this time is not one. One French journalist could prove it using differents laboratory by analazing the pictures given by the authority. I’m sorry I can’t find any article in English to explain it… but this is the video in French that he made (http://www.lemag.ma/Manif-pour-tous-Les-images-etaient-truquees_a70120.html)

      He had the support of the AFP which is the French journalist organization to investigate about it. As soon as he made that discovery the AFP betrayed him and decided to sue him. This article unifortunately doesn’t tell anything about the role of the French media in the current situation…

  • Baron

    Superb piece down to the tweet, Mr. Laughland.

  • moderate Guy

    The people in France, and elsewhere, recognize that this headlong push to destroy the institutions of marriage and family, by grafting it on people who are joined solely out of lust and sexual gratification, is a fundamental threat to a civilized society; small but important part of a concerted attempt by corrupt political elites to maintain control, power and privilege in a rapidly changing world.

    • Acushla

      You are right. The true meaning of the words gay and rainbow has been taken away with its inevitable consequences. This is the Future. It was in the News of one woman raping another woman. It is so sad that it will end in the ocean depths of out of control LAWLESSNESS. France will pay the price for trusting its elected politicians. The future of Planet Earth will be Terrible and Horrible.

    • http://www.facebook.com/vauxhalldave David Reid

      People joined solely out of lust and sexual gratification has got to be one of the most stupid ignorant things I’ve heard. How can you not recognise love and commitment when it is staring you in the face. Gay and lesbian people on the whole are looking for love and to share their lives with a partner.

      • moderate Guy

        Spare me, and everyone else, the sob story about gay “love and commitment” and go take a look at the next gay “pride” parade. Then either say you’re sorry for being so dumb or shut the $#@! up, ’cause you’re beyond hope.

        • http://www.facebook.com/vauxhalldave David Reid

          You could say the same about young heterosexual people on holiday or on any high street on a Saturday night. Of course part of human sexuality is about sexual gratification or lust or attraction but there is also intimacy, partnership love etc which are incredibly strong drives. I am a gay man myself with a lot of gay friends, I am also a researcher who has worked in sexuality research for over 20 years. Your comment is like saying that red haired people only join out of lust and sexual gratification while all others do it for other reasons. Gay people are part of families and form families as well. I am not beyond hope and I think two of the main things that gay pride parades do is to say that gay people exist to the rest of the world and for gay people to celbrate their sexuality in a world where many refuse to acknowledge it as legitimate. It’s not all about you. Do you know any gay people?

          • moderate Guy

            Yes you could; but the difference is heterosexual people defy the institution of marriage out of lust and desire for sexual gratification; homosexuals want to use it to practice it.
            That maybe a small difference to someone with your general ignorance and low intellectual ability; but it is an important difference in maintaining the fundamentals of a civilized society.

          • http://www.facebook.com/vauxhalldave David Reid

            I think you are wrong sexual gratification can also be maximised in an intimate and loving relationship for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Some people will also find it outside of relationships. If you ask gay men what they see as as the best sex life, the most common response is one about relationships, partnerships and intimacy. I think Gay men in particular have little need to marry to assuage lust as they can generally find sex reasonably easily and in fact a desire to civil partner or marry is actually more about forming a partnership or family based on love and commitment and to be supported in that relationship by family and friends.

          • Baron

            David, Baron has a gay friend, one of the best of three friends, he has known him for decades.

            Being born gay is an oddity, not unlike being born blind. It’s an anomaly because evolution created sex for procreation, not for enjoyment, the expression of love, affection and stuff. We enjoy it, had to enjoy it because if we didn’t nobody would have cared to have kids what with no Welfare, the female gestation lasting nine months, the need for looking after the baby for years.

            The institution of marriage evolved to encourage, facilitate procreation and upbringing of the child. Only heterosexual couples can perform the task, as only people born with proper sight can join the institution of driving. Not all heterosexuals procreate, no all people with full vision drive but either could if they wanted to. You cannot.

            And your take on gay pride parades is just laughable. One would have to live on a very distant planet not to be aware gays exist. You’ve made by far more noise since homosexuality got de-criminalised than all the heterosexuals did since the Cambrian times.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Evolution didn’t create sex for anything,, Baron. Do think what you are saying. And who said homosexuals cannot procreate? Oscar Wilde managed it. Cary Grant managed it. Harold Nicholson and his wife whose name escapes me, ah Victoria Ssackville-West, they managed it.. You need to bone up on the birds and the bees, my dear chap..

          • infidel

            Who was the father of Cary Grant”s baby? Again which guy did Oscar Wilde impregnate?

            Oh those were products of heterosexual encounters, which kind of proves Baron’s point.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Au contraire, old fruit. Oscar and Cary did the decent thing before getting back to the boys. Nowadays it could probably be done with test tubes.

          • http://www.facebook.com/vauxhalldave David Reid

            Some lgbt people bring up children through adoption or their own children through heterosexual procreation. Allowing those couples to marry would facilitate the upbringing of children. I was talking historically about pride parades in the west, initially they mostly provided a show of strength, today they are probably more about a celebration of sexuality for gay people themselves rather than a demonstration of existence. Of course the vast majority of people are largely heterosexual and this is reflected in culture, film, TV, newspapers and in interactions with others. Representations of gay people are tiny, it is easy to discount the “noise” that heterosexuality makes because it is so ubiquitous and taken for granted.

        • Fergus Pickering

          Oh stick it up your bum, why don’t you.

          • moderate Guy

            Hmm, isn’t that what YOU do?

          • http://twitter.com/sedgladium Tancred

            Score!

          • Fergus Pickering

            Now why do you suppose that?. I have a wife and two daughters, ever so respectable. But, you see, I don’t feel the need to preach fire and brimstone at everybody. I suggest, ever so politely, that you are a sublimated homosexual full of self-loathing. So YOU stick it up, as I said.

          • moderate Guy

            “I know you are, but what am I”?? That is the best you can do? Did you learn that from your daughters, before you “came out”?

          • Fergus Pickering

            I thought as much. Poor fellow!

          • moderate Guy

            Just a friendly hint; what you and that other fellow are doing is not normally considered “thinking”.

          • Baron

            Fergus, my blogging friend, calm down. You’re on the winning team, what’s your problem.

            One doesn’t have to be, one isn’t really homophobic arguing against homosexual marriage. Baron would attend a ceremony called for inst. gayrriage cementing a coupling of his gay friend and his partner, no problema.

            To extend the right of gays to marry on the basis of mutual affection, love… seems a slippery slope. Many men of either sexual orientation feel love, affection for more than just one woman, the hetero ones have kids outside wedlock. Should we not legalise polygamy on that basis, too? Our Muslim friends would welcome it.

          • Fergus Pickering

            No, Baron. Because I want to do A does not necessarily entail my being forced to do B and C. I may approve of the execution of men with long beards. That is not one step on the slippery slope to executing lower class children..

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matthew-W-Hall/1723611491 Matthew W. Hall

            So much for European pretentions of liberalism on this issue. I’m moving to Amurica, baby!

        • http://twitter.com/fedup7777 john martin lutz

          Y E P…..

      • chris_xxxx

        That’s why they have civil partnerships. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Luke-James/100001724484475 Luke James

          In my country marriage is either hetro or homo ( N.Z.) So no marriage ain’t just between a man and a woman f k whit.

      • GUBU

        …Both things they can have without marriage. Like many people, I understand the rationale for civil partnerships. But the demand for gay ‘marriage’ strikes me as being about something else – not about equality, not about tolerance, but about validation, which is a very different thing altogether.

        • http://www.facebook.com/vauxhalldave David Reid

          I think you are right GUBU I think to a degree it is about equality and tolerance and about validation, at least from the state.

        • http://www.facebook.com/clarice.hair Clarice Hair

          It’s about attempting to eradicate the feelings of shame and inadequacy they have. It’s about “punishing’ heteros because they don’t have to live with it. It’s about forcing people to accept you so you don’t have to live with the pain of being different, In other words, it’s SELF CENTERED and adolescent. Two homosexual people can love, live together, have a life together. But that’s not enough. They have to force everyone else to view them as “normal”. Well you aren’t. Marriage in my religion is a sacrament. What the hell is it now?

          • http://www.facebook.com/vauxhalldave David Reid

            Your religion which everyone should live by presumably who is the one being self centred? Homosexuality is part of human sexuality, as I said most people are heterosexual. That still doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with homosexuality. The idea that you are being punished because homosexuals fight for equality rather than just putting up with being badly treated seems to me to be childish and adolescent.

          • infidel

            So we should bow down to your religion of “social liberalism”?

            And how is not inventing a “right” that does not exist – the right to marry a person of the same sex- equate to gays being “badly” treated?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Luke-James/100001724484475 Luke James

            Homosexuals are normal . Just because it’s not your normal don’t mean it ain’t some other’s normal .Who cares what marriage is in your religion , it’s got nothing to do with me , so keep your sticky nose out of my life and that of other homos .

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003933769538 Jose A. Castellanos

        disagree with ya. but a bigger issue is why are the gays pushing for such changes. I say live and let live and lets tackle the bigger issues – how about it ? lets all back off on this one, its too volatile ! Lets gave after corporate greed and mass muderers (that means dictators I suppose) teaching our kids better as they do in places like Finland and S Korea so they are better prepared in this world. Agree ?

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003933769538 Jose A. Castellanos

          go after not gave after

      • http://twitter.com/JohnDale49 John Dale

        David, you ignore the facts. Studies into the homosexual community (all of them, not just the ones on T.V.) have shown a small majority prefer anonymous sex and polyamory over monogamy. They are by definition deviant.

    • Fergus Pickering

      What a curious thing to say, Guy.. Heterosexuals are never driven by lust and sexual gratification but solely to further family values. Like President Mitterand. Like the present President come to that. Like the chap with seventeen children, six of whom he murdered. Oh, I forgot. He wasn’t actually MARRIED. So that’s all right then.

      • moderate Guy

        Heterosexuals are driven by lust and sexual gratification often enough; but they do not get married for those reasons. Indeed, as even you have pointed out, they defy the institution of marriage for that reason.
        And that is the basis difference. And that difference is all that matters in the discussion on homosexual “marriage”.

    • http://twitter.com/Hitchslap_82 Andy M

      I don’t think it’s as simple as saying all homosexuals are sluts and all heterosexuals are upstanding faithful monogamous members of society. However, I do agree in principle that gay marriage is not ok, on the basis that it is a religious institution and religion condemns the marriage and sexual behaviour of homosexuals. On that, it seems therefore common sense for all concerned that a completely non-religious STATE partnership should be allowed for homosexuals, and all others who are non-religious, for example atheists. This allows them all the same legal rights as a wed couple, without the religious ties. There is no sane reason in the world for this to not be an acceptable solution. Anyone who is against this, gay/straight/bi/atheist/religious or otherwise, is simply against it to be awkward. The only difference is purely the religious ties, which homosexuals should not want anyway seeing as how religion is intolerant of them! Wanting to be married after all this is to be out to cause trouble, force a non-state-run institution to bow to a minority whim, and nothing more,

      • moderate Guy

        That’s a ridiculous projection; though I am not surprised someone like you is not able to comprehend this.
        Heterosexuals also are driven, in many cases, by lust and desire for sexual gratification; but they do it in defiance of the institution of marriage; homosexuals are using that institution to assuage their lust and desire for sexual gratification, and incidentally, in the process are damaging it, one of the fundaments of a civil society.

        • http://twitter.com/Hitchslap_82 Andy M

          What you have done here is laughable. I was agreeing with you, I am on your side.Yet you make a point of whining about certain things?

          • http://twitter.com/semicolin14 Colin Cumming

            I think what this person is trying to say is that heterosexual marriage isn’t always a religious thing either. It has become something else. Atheists get married, those of different religions get married, etc. Why deny this to gay people?

          • http://twitter.com/Hitchslap_82 Andy M

            It’s a moot point. I was never disagreeing with him on the whole or on the idea that heterosexual marriage isn’t always religious. My point is that marriage is a purely religious contract, even if it has become abused in recent years and is now used by the non-religious. The argument against gay marriage would actually be much stronger if those against it extended their beliefs to atheists too. It would make sense then.

          • http://twitter.com/JohnDale49 John Dale

            I do extend the argument. A marriage is always before divinity. Not before a government official. Atheists cannot be married. They can enter some kind of legal contract, but they cannot be married. Nor can homosexuals.

          • http://twitter.com/Hitchslap_82 Andy M

            I entirely agree with that viewpoint. It’s purely common-sense and does not involve persecuting a single minority group – it is a universal rule applied by religion to all non-believers and other groups who do not fit in with the religious worldview. The trouble is, how are the religious going to reform their religion so that this is the practiced and enforced view? In Britain for example, huge numbers of heterosexual couples are married, yet many of those are not religious.

            If the Church wants to adopt the proposed argument against gay marriage, it will need to be seen imposing its views on Atheist and possibly even Agnostic couples too. How does it go about doing that? It it something that is even achievable given the scale of religion and the differing beliefs and interpretations of various religious groups and leaders within a single religion?

          • http://twitter.com/bigsammyb bigsammyb

            Marriage is a legal contract. Your religious ceremonies are NOT marriage.

      • http://twitter.com/bigsammyb bigsammyb

        ‘gay marriage is not ok’ ? What on earth gives you the idea marriage is a religious ceremony? Here in the UK only the church of england and government registered registry offices can marry people. ALL other religious weddings are not legal at all until such a time they register the marriage AFTER the religious wedding.

        So marriage is a legal contract it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. And homosexuals have as much right to it as anyone else. To suggest otherwise is bigotry and an attempt to deny rights to people you enjoy yourself when it makes no difference to you whatsoever.

        • http://twitter.com/Hitchslap_82 Andy M

          You have made some incorrect assumptions. I don’t feel I should be allowed to get married in a religious ceremony, because I am agnostic, bordering on atheist. I therefore would accept if I was banned from being wed in a religious ceremony. So to make it seem that I am advocating denying rights to others when it makes no difference to me is untrue. I am saying the church should go back to its roots, become a strict religion and deny everyone but the religious a religious ceremony.

          You make the point that here in the UK only the Church of England and government registry offices can marry people – you prove my point. C of E is the nation’s recognised Church, so therefore that IS a religious ceremony which IS be dealt with in a religious fashion. The registry office is the alternative that should be provided to all non-religious folk, separate from religion. The Church has every right to refuse to marry those who do not fit in with its religious worldview, so long as it doesn’t discriminate and show special favour towards one minorty group, such as atheists, over another, suuch as gays.

        • gregoire malherbe

          Actualy, to tell the truth, french people are against adoption for gay couple (which is normal, you are born from a men and a woman) if you ask adopted young people, they will tell you that they want a dady and a mommy, wich are additional) and marriage in french ceremony include the family book registrery, so it means if we accept that they marry. We accept adoption, which we don’t

        • JudgeRight

          It may be a legal contract because the state follows the nature of things created by God. Today the state believes itself a god, that is why it legislate in essence things which it has no power over — like marriage and procreation. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman for love and procreation. Homosexual “marriage” is simply making a point by a corrupt government that they are bigger than God.

        • infidel

          It only took 2 paragraphs for the “bigotry” card to be played. Well done, I appreciate your restraint in ignoring the points brought up and trying to label and slander those that disagree with you.

          Well played!

      • Twisk

        The Bible-thumping is exactly the reason why the anti-homosexual marriage Brits massively lost the battle of opinion. Nobody wants to hear about christian morals.

        Give us facts, not antiquated beliefs nobody gives a hoot about.

        • http://twitter.com/Hitchslap_82 Andy M

          I think you aimed your comment at the wrong person. I’m not religious.

    • http://twitter.com/JohnDale49 John Dale

      I truly wish more people were awake to what is going on. It’s very clear
      what globalists and statists are doing here.

      Over decades, they have removed religion from Christian countries across the
      Western world. They have chased out people of faith while indoctrinating more
      and more people into the class of empty, atheistic drones. Why? Simple. Karl
      Marx was right when he correctly labeled religion as a competitor to
      government. These people don’t want people putting their faith in divinity, in
      Jesus Christ, in something beyond human comprehension. They want people putting
      their faith in THEM!

      Look at how they demonize the tenets of Christianity. If you believe
      correctly that marriage can only ever be and only ever should be, between one
      man and one woman, you are a backward Neanderthal against progress! You’re a
      racist discriminating against the race that is homosexuals.

      The blatant insanity is exemplified in the case of how we classify
      ‘transgender’ people today. Someone who says they are a dog trapped in a man’s
      body is nuts. Someone who says they are a woman trapped in a man’s body is
      perfectly fine, and needs to be treated sensitively. Does anyone ever ask why
      homosexuality has not been accepted throughout most of human history? Could it
      perhaps be because it’s a biological dead-end? An aberration that if present in
      more people than the few it afflicts, would be a major concern for the
      continuation of the entire species. The nuclear family is what is desired, what
      is needed. It is the ideal thing every person should aim for, and right now, we
      are trashing it. Not just on the issue of homosexuality, but within heterosexuality
      itself. I deplore the divorce rates. It’s disgusting! The sexual promiscuity
      among heterosexuals is out of control. Why? Why not! If there’s no God, there’s
      no consequence for our actions. We can just do whatever we want, (unless of
      course, our masters in the government tell us we can’t).

      If you’re a parent out there who sees where this is all going, take my
      advice. Pull your kids out of public education, teach them the values that your
      ancestors intended you to teach them, and STOP listening to anyone who accuses
      you of being a racist or a bigot. These people are the mind controlled masses.
      They’re drones. Resist them.

      • moderate Guy

        Excellent points.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Luke-James/100001724484475 Luke James

        You are a fool = homosexuality has been accepted in more human societies than it has been opposed in . The societies who oppose it are only those that have some christian -islamic foundation and these are well and truely in the minority as human history goes .

    • Dr_Spence

      You are just a nasty little bigot. You obviously do not understand that gay people can love in exactly the same way straight people can. They can also want to bring up children as part of a loving family. OK, so they can’t reproduce within the family (but nor can so may heterosexual couples) so IVF and adoptions are their only options. To deny this right to people is just vicious.

      • moderate Guy

        You are a despicable little libertine with no concept of what love or commitment is (as opposed to lust and desire for sexual gratification); and a complete lack of understanding how “parenting” by homosexuals is seriously damaging to the children victimized by it; and how ridiculing the institution of marriage by allowing same sex people to pretend they are married, undermines one of the fundamental building blocks of a civilized society.

    • http://twitter.com/teh_senaus Sean Micklethwaite

      What a load of bollocks. Do you think marriage is a finite resource that will somehow be ‘used up’ by gay people? Allowing gay marriage doesn’t make marriage less meaningful.

      • moderate Guy

        While I am not surprised that someone like you has no capability to understand this issue; let’s try again, slowly, point by point so maybe even you can somehow grasp it:
        – it’s not that it is a “limited resource”
        – it’s that it is a fundamental building block of a civilized society
        – using to to assuage cheap political maneuvering (by left wing politicos) or to justify lust and desire for sexual gratification (by practitioners of homosexual sex) does damage to that building block of civilized society, hence it damages the society itself.

        • http://twitter.com/teh_senaus Sean Micklethwaite

          What exactly is the damage? If person X decides to marry person Y, tell me objectively how that effects anyone else’s marriage.

    • Pyro

      It’s not about lust and self gratification. Not for me anyway. I’m in a committed relationship for 17 years, met my guy when I was 19 and it’s been perfect cheesy story book love ever since. How dare you judge other people and claim to know how they love.

      Aiden

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matthew-W-Hall/1723611491 Matthew W. Hall

    All this and Hollande goes to China to agree a “multipolar world”! THAT is moral decay. Globalization presents us all with a choice. France is refusing to make that choice. France is being amoral, the U.K. or the U.S.

  • David Lindsay

    More John Laughland, please.

    When the Left opposes this kind of thing, then it is the proper Left, concerned
    with the roots and fruits economic inequality rather than with lifestyle issues, and very often formed and informed by a profound religious conviction, especially the Catholic Faith.

    For example, among the Labour MPs who voted to defend traditional marriage were two members of the Socialist Campaign Group, figures staunchly Old Left even by the standards of that formation. While clear majorities both of the Labour MPs who voted that way (13 out of 22) and of those who abstained (nine out of 16)
    were signatories to Early Day Motion 1334, which calls for the BBC to lift its
    blackout of the Morning Star.

    Among the abstainers were two Shadow Ministers who are prominent Evangelical Protestants, including the only Pentecostal pastor in Parliament. Yes, Labour; first elected in 2010, not born until 1981, and, if it matters, white, like the other one,
    whose speech made it abundantly clear that he would vote against Third Reading
    if such a thing ever presented itself.

    As well as at least two Muslims and a famously proud Brahmin. Not to mention
    that most celebrated son of the manse. But a high proportion of the 16
    abstainers and a very high proportion of the 22 opponents were made up of
    practising Catholics. Including at least one of the Campaign Group members,
    himself not merely a signatory to, but a sponsor of, EDM 1334.

    • GUBU

      I presume ‘that most celebrated son of the manse’ is the former Prime Minister. Surely he didn’t vote because he can’t be arsed actually earning his salary as a MP, as he has publicly reversed the position he held before the 2010 general election and now supports gay marriage?

      • David Lindsay

        No. And note that his consigliere, Shaun Woodward, who defected over Section 28, also abstained.

        This Bill is doomed. It is the thing that Cameron will drop after the catastrophic local election results, because it is the thing that he can drop without having to spend any money.

        • GUBU

          Sorry, but I can read, and Brown is on record as saying he now supports legalising the ‘right to marriage’. Woodward is also on record as supporting the legislation, and like Brown cited other commitments as the reason for his abstention.

          • David Lindsay

            Not the record that is the Division List of the House of Commons, they are not.

          • GUBU

            Did you throw those words up in the air and type them in the order they landed?

            Here are two simple sentences as a guide to how it might be done. Brown and Woodward are on record as saying that they support gay marriage legislation. Neither voted on the second reading of the Bill in February, citing other commitments as the reason for their absence.

            See, it’s easy….

          • David Lindsay

            See, you’re simple, and hopelessly out of your depth, which, considering that this is not a particularly profound matter, strongly suggests that you are just on the wrong site, and should really be braying in the corner of a pub, oblivious to the fact that everyone who is not paid to be there leaves whenever you come in.

          • GUBU

            No amount of verbiage can disguise the fact that your assertion about both men was wrong. Or that you are a pompous ass….

  • passerby1969

    I’d like to know how France’s large Muslim minority fits in to this story.

    • buschbapti

      Well they’ve been very quiet during those events. We’ve seen Frigite Barjot (leader of the “Manif pour tous”) who tried to fraternize with them and some of them rose against this law but the large majority didn’t move. That’s mainly the reason why people and gouvernment said it was a catholic and conservationist insurection.

    • David Lindsay

      One hardly needs to ask, does one?

      But a lot of the opposition has pointed out that any compromise on the principle that marriage can only ever be the union of one man and one woman opens the door to Islamic polygamy.

    • JeanBon

      This mass of demonstrators is not only right-wing, but also left-wing,
      heteros but also homos, all origins, races, religions. Some spokesmen
      are leftist gays. United we will win – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii4_D6nG6aohttp://www.lesmusulmanspourlenfance.com/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0NvM6NzTxo

  • Poussin

    being french I want to thank you very much for this bright article, crystal clear, free spirited, but that you’ll never find in the french media. Only omission : the partial role played by the media in the non-debate, and ideological bias, that infuriates the people. States lies plus ignominious propaganda, were and are both fuels of the upheaval. That is only starting. french people have nothing against gay marriage, but it must be named differently, and not infer rights to buy, make, produce, design, select, adopt a child. The right of an orphan to have a mother and a father comes first and prevails. The Elton John happy picture rebukes the french public. I wish I was there when their children will ask : “but who is my mother ?” “how much did you pay to have me ?” “why did she sell me ?

    • matt227

      An orphan as a right to not be an orphan first. Quality of parents has nothing to do with the sex of the parent.

      • Poussin

        parents mean a father and a mother. And I don’t deny quality to a father and his boyfriend…

        • matt227

          Wrong. A parent does not have to be married to have a child, and a parent does not need to be with someone of the opposite sex to have a child. Furthermore, there are 120000 children in the US with either two fathers or two mothers by legal and cultural definitions. The tragedy is half a million orphans in the US because not enough opposite sex couples are able and willing to adopt them.

        • http://www.facebook.com/hfites Howard Fites

          Funny my husband and I will have to inform our daughter, the doctor, and son, the architect. I guess all that parenting was for nothing.

          • http://twitter.com/JohnDale49 John Dale

            You don’t have a daughter or a son. You might have legal rights to two children you paid for somewhere, but they are not actually your children. A man and a man cannot have kids, because they are biologically incompatible. This is a fact, and will be the fact for all eternity.

    • kyleyoder

      Elton John got his baby inside the United States.

      • Poussin

        paid for it. The law allows it. I don’t want that law in France. And I’m not the only one. I belong the majority and we’ll surprise the world.

        • Eddie

          Oh gosh you are naive! You already have that in France, with babies bought in China, Brazil, Russia all being brought up in France right now.

    • Fergus Pickering

      You berk, an orphan has neither a father nor a mother. That’s why he’s an orphan. Rights don’t come into it. It’s like saying a blind man has a right to sight.

      • Poussin

        you’re right, by nature we are born from a man and a woman. Denying that to a child is a lie against nature. Like saying a blind man has a right to sight… aren’t you blind ?

    • Eddie

      The French are a deeply conservative people, way less liberal or open-minded than the Brits. We find this quaint and charming in general – for example, you still have a countryside with peasants living lives as of 50 years ago; in England, our villages are all full of craft shops and estate agents, and way out of ordinary people’s price range.

      • http://www.facebook.com/hfites Howard Fites

        Conservative? The French have a rather nasty fascist subset.

        • Colonel Mustard

          So does the Labour party and most of its adherents.

    • Baron

      Poussin, sir, good on you. You stick with it.

  • http://twitter.com/4p0c01yps3comin Mark DiGrandi

    This is, hands-down, the best news I’ve heard all week.
    10/10

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeanjacques.burlamaqui Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui

    Same-sex marriage is an injustice, a tyrannical ploy being perpetrated upon our society, the pernicious consequences of which are simply mocked and laughed at by its supporters. Ignorance and prejudice have taken the place of knowledge and reason. Caprice and passion substituted for prudence and virtue. The happiness of society, the good of all families, and the welfare of mankind fall victim to the injustice of selfish adult love, which calculates every thing for itself, while taking no notice of a child’s best interest or the public advantage of a government promoting ONLY the traditional family unit.

    Same-sex marriage is antithetical to the Rule of Law, for the principle object of laws in general is to correct bad inclinations, to prevent vicious habits, to hinder their effects, and to eradicate the passions; or at least to contain them within proper limits. Same-sex marriage makes an implicit statement that mothers and fathers are interchangeable, and that sex is irrelevant to parenting. Once same-sex marriage becomes legally and socially acceptable, more women will decide to raise children together. Teen aged boys without fathers are at risk for juvenile delinquency, violence, criminal activity, gang membership, and incarceration. Teen aged girls without fathers are at risk for early sexual activity, multiple sex partners, out of wedlock pregnancies, and sexually transmitted disease.

    Same-sex marriage is perfectly contrary to the principle of marriage, having more resemblance to divorce and adultery, same-sex marriage purposely separates a child from at least one biological parent, thereby creating broken homes, not as a matter of extraordinary circumstances, but as routine. Same-sex marriage proponents callously ignore a child’s Natural Right to know, and be raised by, both biological parents, and make the most preposterous and pretentious claim that marriage was instituted by civil society primarily for the benefit of any two loving adults. Take away Natural Laws, and that moral tie which supports justice and honesty in a whole nation and establishes also particular duties in families, or in other relations of life; and man becomes the most savage and ferocious of all animals,licentiousness becomes the consequence of independence.

    Here are two truths regarding marriage: (1) A man creating a family with another man is not equal to creating a family with a woman, and (2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both.

    Same-sex marriage couples selfishly demand “Marriage Equality”, yet, in return, they offer LESS-THAN-EQUAL protection of the child’s happiness than can be afforded through the presence of both biological parents. In the name of “Marriage Equality”, same-sex marriage leaves the child fully aware that his family is, in all truth, not at all “equal”, natural, nor complete. The use of the term “marriage equality” by same-sex marriage proponents selfishly ignores the child’s perspective of “equality”.

    Same-sex marriage proponents profess that it is love which gives the right to join the institution of marriage, yet, in doing so, they selfishly violate the principle LOVING objective of this noble institution; to protect a child’s Natural Right to be raised by both biological parents.

    In fine, same-sex marriage surmounts to nothing more than an unnatural extravagance which the supporters most ignorantly claim to be a “right”.

    “No one has a right to do that which, if everybody did it, would destroy society.” —Immanuel Kant

  • http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ monkey for sale

    The issue, in other words, has touched a nerve in France, a country
    divided between a globalist elite and a conservative nation, part of
    which still believes in the family and the state. Dominique
    Strauss-Kahn’s philandering while head of the IMF revolted many French
    people precisely because such behaviour seemed to embody the deep link
    between international economic liberalism and moral collapse. Hollande’s
    economic orthodoxy (austerity to save the euro) coupled with his
    support for gay marriage seems but a softer version of the same
    phenomenon

    Only a nasty cun Tory would compare an orgy-loving (and accused ) rapist like Dominique Strauss-Kahn with equal marriage.

    It’s not gay people who will equalise marriage ; it’s the parents and siblings , the friends and workmates of gay people who will.

  • greggf

    ….And Le Figaro reports a ransom of some 7 million US $ and 2.4 million € was paid, and 16 Boko Haram Islamistes were released for the freedom for the Moulin-Fournier family…….
    http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2013/04/26/01003-20130426ARTFIG00437-otages-paris-reaffirme-son-opposition-a-toute-rancon.php

  • http://twitter.com/Hitchslap_82 Andy M

    “There is currently no gay adoption in France and no access for gays or lesbians to medically assisted procreation. These have been legalised to general indifference in Britain”

    That’s because in Britain we don’t really have our own national culture anymore, it has been taken away from us by Political Correctness, immigration and extreme Liberalism. Countries like France and Italy still have a culture and an identity, because they are not afraid to say things which might come across as un-PC, they are protective of their heritage and they aren’t made to feel guilty about doing so. We would not have been so indifferent in Britain if there weren’t lots of loud, over-the-top liberals ready to shout ‘homophobe’ or ‘racist’ whenever anyone put an opinion across that questioned this kind of thing. We have what is almost a militant liberalism in the UK, where there is no such thing as too much immigration, no such thing as a legitimate opinion against gay marriage…in their eyes. We are scared to speak out against any changes in our society when minority groups are involved.

    • Colonel Mustard

      All true.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Democratist Democratist Scribbler
    • http://www.facebook.com/Democratist Democratist Scribbler

      This piece of Kremlin-inspired idiocy made me so angry I wrote a rejoinder. That the Speccie ever printed it is a bad joke.

  • http://twitter.com/kevint1972 Kevin T

    The term “human rights” is being used to place left wing political causes above democracy and thus subvert it. “Human rights” are treated like the sacred word of God when in fact they are a fairly arbitrary set of rights decided by mainly left-leaning politicians and lawyers with an agenda.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Excellently concise and devastatingly true.

  • http://twitter.com/kevint1972 Kevin T

    Strange the word Catholic doesn’t appear in the article though. France is as staunchly Catholic a country as Ireland and this is undoubtedly a huge factor.

  • Jeanette Victoria

    Too bad other Western Countries don’t have the same back bone

  • Jeanette Victoria

    Translation of the song they are singing

    Here is the text of the song:

    “A l’assemblé la Taubira à décide d’assassiner, le enfants du pays réel et les familles par dessus tout”

    “In the parliament, Taubira has decided to assassinate the children of true France and above all the family”

    “La vrai famille c’est un papa, la vrai famille c’est une maman”

    “A true family is a father, a true family is a mother”

    “La vrai famille c’est des berceaux et des enfants qui sont heureux”

    “A true family is cradles and children who are happy”

    “Manuel Gaz a décidé d’utiliser les CRS, pour matraquer notre jeunesse avec étrange férocité”

    “Manuel Gaz has decided to use riot police, to beat our youth with strange ferocity”

    “A l’assemblé nous avons voté la décadance commencée, les députés étant des sages, nous pouvons toujours espérer”

    “In the parliament they voted the start of decadence, the parliamentarians are the wise ones, we can always hope”

    “La Taubira toujours prolixe contre toute moralité, qu’attends messieurs les sénateurs de lui clouer le bec”

    “Taubira always wordy against all morality, what are the senators waiting for to shut her mouth?”

    “Au président de la république nous voulons dire notre colère, de voir la France ravalée au rang du vice légalisé”

    “To the president of the republique we want to express our anger to see France remade in the name of legalised vice”

    “Et jamais nous accepterons de voir la famille détruite, par une loi si scélérate si bien fabriquée dans les loges”

    “And we will never accept to see the family destroyed by a such a villainous law so well assembled in the masonic lodges.”

  • Jeanette Victoria

    On the night of the 23rd of April, the crowd turned against the media who were to the left of barricade. They shouted, “Media Collaborators!” and chased them until they sought protection behind the gaystapo. One poor journalist suffered the loss of his pretty red muffler from his microphone.

    It’s the second video on this link.http://www.fdesouche.com/367536-des-journalistes-du-petit-journal-courses-aux-invalides-video

    One of the slogans chanted is: “CRS, serre les fesses on arrive à toute vitesse” or “Riot Police, clench your buttocks, we’re coming for you at full speed.”

  • Brindian

    I am leftwing but even I find the idea of gay marriage and adoption repulsive. The French are going too far there. You can have full rights and tolerance for homosexuals without having single-sex marriages or adoptions.

    • http://twitter.com/teh_senaus Sean Micklethwaite

      That wouldn’t be FULL rights now would it…

    • JeanBon

      Brindian, you are welcome to join. This mass of demonstrators is not only right-wing, but also left-wing, heteros but also homos, all origins, races, religions. Some spokesmen are leftist gays. United we will win http://www.lamanifpourtous.fr/en/2013-04-20-09-34-25/spokesman

  • http://twitter.com/semicolin14 Colin Cumming

    When those in France who oppose same-sex marriage realize that nothing about their own marriage or their own lives is going to change, this “revolution” will die down.

  • http://twitter.com/fedup7777 john martin lutz

    Good job protesters…
    Keep up the fight……

  • lansdowne8

    Very odd that the only solution the world’s ineffective politicians can find for the never-ending economic crisis is to allow same sex marriage for all.
    For the rest, I have been hearing that France is on the brink of revolution for at least as long as I have lived came to live in Paris two decades or more ago. Every week brings new demonstrations, never mind the ostensible cause if cause there is. The French love demonstrating just as they do arguing. It makes them feel alive. Very tiresome. They gripe about who ever the president of the moment is and then praise him once he leaves at the expense of his successor. These may apply even to the grotesque Sarkozy albeit there is the danger with him that he might come back. The French quite rightly like their leaders to be cultivated men who love books and art as much as they do women and wine. For that reason, Mitterand and Chirac, rascals that they were, could be forgiven. The trouble is that the cultivated, dignified statesmen of the past are dying out leaving only ageing baby-boomers raised on television and cannabis rather than reading. Carla Bruni tried to educate her husband but it was never entirely convincing and the only because M Hollande is known to have read History for Dummies. M Hollande’s real problem may be that he may not be enough of a gangster to reassure the French.

  • http://twitter.com/JohnDale49 John Dale

    None of it matters. The sun is setting on the West. Even the United States has abandoned its Christians roots in favor of homosexual marriage. Only the formalities have yet to be worked out.
    And what is happening? Debts of Everest-proportions. The descent into police states where every piece of technology is utilized to spy on the people and rob them of liberty. Declining qualities of life. Self-hatred of one’s culture, country, gee, dare I say ethnic group for fear of being called racist?
    This article is accurate about the political elite in Europe.
    With regards to homosexuals, what is Russia doing? Russia is seeing all of this and running as fast as it can in the other direction, avoiding the same mistakes the West did by banning normalization propaganda in schools and public arenas. Without that, there will never be homosexual marriage in Russia.
    When a country turns against itself, against what built it, it is doomed to go down in flames. Europe, and then the USA will become corpses of discontent and unrest. Society will collapse like Rome, and hopefully… French youth will rediscover their heritage and rebuild France.

  • Ge0ffrey

    1) There is no gay gene, and 2) the parts don’t fit.

  • http://www.facebook.com/clemence.retailleau.1 Clémence Retailleau

    François, remind it, we will never let go!

  • lawyertheologian

    Andy, state acknowledged gay partneships is not what gays want. They want the word marriage with the honor and acceptance that come with it. And to not accept it is considered bigotry, as if it were like not approving of a person’s skin color.

    Marriage is a contract, a civil matter according to the Bible. The Church acknowleges marriage among persons of any belief. But the meaning of this contract has been understood to apply to a particular relationship, a one flesh union of a man and a woman, a unique one, that alone brings about propagation.

  • jarunasax

    The destruction of marriage and the family was already done by straight people when moses allowed for divorce to be allowed with the shouting of “I divorce thee” three times by the man, (read your bible), it was that simple for the man. The King who to get rid of his wives would behead them until he saw fit to start his own religion (thank you Church of England), The destruction of marriage was pushed forward by the initial banning of marriage by people of different races and in some cases religions, but over time that has changed.
    The catholic church, i’m sorry to say, doesn’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to the issue. It has to be noted that homosexuality and pedophilia are not mutually exclusive, considering that the catholic priests who abused children also abused girls, but the high number of boys who were abused by catholic priests is astounding and staggering. So the more the catholic church sounds the drums of war, the more homosexuality is a scary issue, with ignorant people ascribing homosexuals with pedophilia (the call by russia to not allow their children fall into the hands of gay couples)

    People are worried about the family? Then why do more straight couples not adopt? why do parents abandon their children, why are there high ratios of orphans and homeless children put into foster care, bounced from home to home reporting high cases of physical and sexual abuse by heterosexual parents.

    If the issue is marriage, then ban divorce, it would make people think then, if the issue is family, then criminalise child abandonment. But you have people who want to marry, for some strange reason, they want to suffer through the pain of divorce, of being tied to one person legally for the rest of their lives, (and if you have seen what happened to Mel Gibson when he was getting divorced and most celebrity marriages that end in divorce where there are kids, you will know it’s not pretty)

    The most hilarious thing is that it’s not the lesbians that seem to disgust people, it’s the homosexual men, that is the bit that is considered unnatural. Men are disgusting in they would take pleasure in standing round and watching 2 women engaged in sexual activity, it’s appealing, alluring, but 2 men, and the gauntlet is thrown down. It’s hypocrisy at its best. It’s what people have been fighting over for countless years.

    People forget that marriage used to be between a man and a woman, but that man and woman could be a man and 3 women, before that practice was banned in christianity, so that one man one woman argument is false politicising.

    People want to get married? let them, because if they can marry, they can also divorce, than can also be subject to marriage taxes, as well as benefits, if they are raising children they will invest in their community to better it, gay or straight lets all suffer alike. I’m straight and I can see the clear logic in that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.j.foster.9 John Jay Foster

    Some people are straight, some people are gay, some straight people are good, some are bad, some gay people are good, some are bad, some people are black, some people are white….I could go on and on…when will this world realize some people are made differently, and just bc you thinks thats gross, or thats against your religion doesn’t give you the right to treat them any less. Gay people should be allowed to marry eachother and grow old with someone they love just like straight couples…leave these people alone you hell hounds and focus your energy on something that is not abusive…..like feeding, housing and clothing the hungry maybe.

  • JeanBon

    Very odd that the free press is only reporting on this national debate/division now that the law has been forced through corruption, pressure. Debate has turned into resistance. http://www.lamanifpourtous.fr/en/ Will the next national demonstration on 26 May 2013 in Paris will be another May 68 or French Revolution II?

    All our nationwide demos or unified demos in Paris have been ignored. You cannot ignore up to 2 MILLION PEOPLE in the street! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjumSgw6cDk

  • Twisk

    The opposition to the homosexual marriage has nothing to do with such or such party or government. It stems from worry for the children, period.

    What I don’t get is how, in other countries, people missed the obvious point of the children’s well-being and best interest.
    Somebody please explain?

  • Hammer_Dog

    I wonder how many of the young protesters were Muslim?
    I also find it ironic that France, the country where taking a mistress is considered normal and acceptable, is at the forefront in upholding traditional values.

  • JustAnOtherRandomGit

    “Elie Peillon, the son of the Minister of Education”

    It takes a brave man to build a theory on the tweeting habits of a teenage boy, but well done for the attempt.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here