Jose Antonio Ureta, Founding Member of Fundacion Roma
This talk deals with what I will call the French Apocalypse. Don’t worry. I am neither foretelling Doomsday nor suggesting you to move to Idaho or to an isolated island of the Fiji Archipelago.
I am just using the word in its original Ancient Greek meaning of “un-covering.”
The debate around same-sex fake marriage in France has indeed been a revelation. I will quickly point out some of its key elements.
1st bad revelation – The Radical Scope of the Civil Code Reform
The bill’s introducer, Minister of Justice Christiane Taubira, bluntly acknowledged its real scope: “It is a reform of society and one could even say a reform of civilisation.”
It is a social engineering experiment overtly aimed at changing public mores and citizens’ mentality.
2nd bad revelation – The New Dawn of Polygamy, Incest and Under Age Sex
To sell this social experiment to the public, the French government labelled it “Marriage for all.”
Cardinal Vingt-Trois of Paris immediately denounced the dishonesty of the slogan, declaring that the so-called “marriage for all” was nothing but a denatured marriage for just a few imposed upon all.
To underline the slogan’s absurdity, independent MP Jacques Bompard tabled several amendments to legalize polygamy, incest and sex with children and explained that “the government justifies the extension of marriage to same-sex couples … by the love such partners may have for one another. Now, if the government takes its reasoning to its conclusion, it should extend the possibility of contracting a marriage to all kinds of couples and all forms of love.”
Supporters of the bill later confirmed that demolishing those legal barriers was indeed their ultimate goal.
Writer Catherine Ternaux openly asked in an op-ed : “Poligamy: Why not?”
“Provided all partners are consenting, would too much love hurt?”
And replying to the argument that women are exploited under polygamy, she further asked: “Wouldn’t advocating the right to polyandry be the real fight for women’s liberation? Thus a woman could also have more than one husband.”
3rd bad revelation – Lying is Ethical to Advance the Homosexual Agenda
It is obvious that heterosexual and homosexual couples are not equal before biology. Why should they then be considered equal before the law?
During the civil unions debate in 1998, former Minister of Justice, Elisabeth Guigou declared herself opposed to adoption of children by homosexuals, saying “with regard to the child heterosexual and homosexual couples are in different situations. Non-discrimination doesn’t mean non-differentiation.”
To explain her “U turn,” she recently declared: “As the opposition was demonizing the reform being discussed, it was necessary to separate civil unions on one side and family and filiation on the other side. A bulkhead was required.”
Socialist Party Congressman Jean-Pierre Michel, author of the first civil unions bill and today the rapporteur of the marriage bill in the Senate, declared during the 1998 parliamentary discussion:
“The bill does maintain discrimination ... Marriage shall not be open to homosexual couples. … Basically I think that the homosexual couple is singular and that it would be useless for it to ape the heterosexual couple, which for me is based upon the differentiation of the sexes and is the only one entitled to marriage.”
But today he thinks the opposite and asks: ““When it comes to mutual protection, based on one’s love for each other, what is the difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual couple?”
When was he lying: in 1998 or today? Obviously back in 1998, only to facilitate the approval of the civil unions bill.
Allow me a short detour regarding the use of the word “couple” to refer to homosexual partners. Pr Daniel Godard denounced this abuse of language: “Assembling two elements of the same nature does not form a ‘couple’ but a ‘pair.’ One says a pair of scissors, a pair of eye-glasses and never a couple of scissors or a couple of eye-glasses. It is the same for living beings. Two oxen under a yoke form a pair of oxen and never a couple of oxen. … The term ‘couple’ is grounded on a principle of differentiation and otherness,” obviously absent in a same-sex union.
4th bad revelation – Denaturing Marriage from an Institution into a Free Contract
Sociologist of religion Danièle Hervieu-Léger asserted in an article printed by Le Monde that “It is no longer marriage that makes the couple, but it is the couple that makes marriage” at its own will, thus “deconstructing the supposed natural order. “
Almost all Catholic Bishops’ statements against the bill stressed the fact that, on the contrary, marriage is a pre-existent institution in which one enters and not a contract one freely draws.
But the strongest statement came from Bishop Vincent Jordy of Saint-Claude:
“Etymologically marriage comes from ‘matrimonium’, that itself comes from ‘mater’, i.e. ‘mother.’ Therefore marriage is literally a man who passes a contract with a woman so that she becomes the mother of his offspring. At the origin, that was never a matter of love. Marriage has not been invented to institutionalize specific forms of love, but to ensure society’s structure based on filiation.”
Pius XII had brilliantly exposed this doctrine in his renowned 1951 address to midwives: “Matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it.”
More recent documents of the Catholic Church have alas! blurred a little bit this primacy of procreation.
While c. 1013 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law stated “the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children,” c. 1055 of the 1983 Code describes the matrimonial covenant as a partnership “ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.”
I ask myself whether by inverting the order of ends haven’t we provided the stick for the homosexual lobby to beat us, by claiming that same-sex unions are primarily ordered to the good of partners as well?
The experience of the French debate made me realize that we have to start thinking seriously about reverting to the old formula. This Congress is may be a good opportunity for launching such a review.
5th bad revelation –Children Transformed into Objects
Despite the fact that human procreation requires a man and a woman, Sociologist Virginie Descoubes wrote in Liberation that “It is the heteronormativity that posits two people of the same sex cannot procreate a child” and Erwann Binet, rapporteur of the bill in the Lower House, affirmed that the day is coming when humanity may “give up biological filiation in favour of voluntary filiation.”
That is why, despite all denials, same-sex marriage necessarily brings in its bosom IVF for lesbians and surrogacy for homosexual males.
Senator Jean-Pierre Michel suggested during a hearing that “maternity is already detached from child bearing because of surrogacy” and “Ex utero pregnancies will no longer be a fiction tomorrow.”
Pierre Bergé, the homosexual partner of passed away stylist Yves Saint-Laurent, even declared that nothing was wrong with surrogacy because "Renting a womb to make a baby is just like renting someone's arms in a factory to make a product."!
Same-sex marriage really amounts to the “fabrication of adoptable children,” as Law Professor Aude Mirkovic denounced it.
In a brilliant presentation before the Senate Commission, philosopher Thibaut Collin stressed that marriage cannot be redefined at will and quoted Montesquieu: “Something does not become just because it is written in the law, but rather something becomes a law because it is just.”
Senate Rapporteur Jean-Pierre Michel immediately replied: “What is right is what the law says. That’s all. And the law does not refer to a natural order. It refers to a balance of power at any given time. That’s it!. This is the Marxist view on the rule of law.”
“It has the merit of clarity,” Collin retorted.
7th bad revelation – A Totalitarian Way to Impose an Unpopular Revolution
The latest poll showed that only 36% of French voters approve a same sex marriage bill if it includes adoption of children by homosexual partners. In spite of this massive opposition, the government and the leaders of the parliamentary majority:
· refused to organize a civic debate involving all interested parties before the parliamentary discussion
· refused to call for a referendum on an issue that profoundly divides French nation;
· imposed fast track procedure in the legislative process, limiting the parliamentary discussion;
· pressed a vote in the Senate by a simple show of hands instead of a nominal vote, to protect a handful of traitors in the ranks of the opposition parties and thus obtain a meagre anonymous approval in the Higher House;
· refused that France’s Social and Economic Council reported on the bill’s social impact despite a 700.000 petition;
· refused to allocate time for a hearing of the leaders of the March for All on the allegation that they represented “the worst of homophobic people”; and
· employed intimidating tactics to prevent the spreading of the protests, like ordering the riot police to brutalize with tear gas women and children during rallies and placing in custody at the police station young people for the crime of attending peaceful night vigils.
Now, we reach the real, magnificent 8th revelation, certainly inspired by the Holy Spirit: what is being called “The French Spring.”
8th excellent revelation – The French Spring Against Homosexual Totalitarianism
Since a year ago,
· hundreds of in-depth analysis and communiqués have being written,
· thousands of petitions had been signed by millions,
· four major rallies were held since last November (one of which numbering almost 1 and a half million people, that is the largest ever rally in French history),
· numberless local demonstrations carried out in provincial cities and towns and
· thousands of social media initiatives taken every single day.
French people are preparing for a lengthy battle, including every possible means of resistance and particularly conscientious objection on the part of 14,900 mayors and deputy mayors who have declared they will refuse to celebrate these types of unions. In fact, in about 2,500 town halls there will be no municipal authority to celebrate those fake same sex “marriages.”
The resistance network has given birth to a new movement called “Veilleurs”: the “Watchers” or “Vigil-Makers”. These are regular nightly gatherings of young people held in over a hundred French towns where they peacefully sit-in with lighted candles, to meditate, listen to poetry or sing softly together until the police chases them away or take them into custody.
We can say with Jeanne Smits, editor of conservative daily Présent, that we witness “a new social phenomenon: the awakening of an uninhibited, conservative, politically aware and mostly faith-filled youth who are prepared to take their share of violent police blows and teargas.”
“The French Christian youth” says on his part a very popular blog, Itinerarium, “has shown they have no longer fear of the enemy and that they are no longer paralysed by human respect. It is an apocalypse; we mean a revelation of who is this generation in its inner depth and what are their dreams. This is indeed a reversion of History, because what we are now witnessing was unthinkable ten years ago.”
In conclusion, I fully agree with Luca Volontè, the Italian MP who presides the Christian Democratic group in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, who wrote in a letter to the participants of the French Rally for All: “You are Europe’s most beautiful surprise.”
A Revelation, indeed.