Photo credit: Gweneal Piaser
The pace at which the UK has trodden the path towards the legalisation of same-sex marriage may have frustrated its strongest supporters, yet the French reception to equivalent legislation should serve as a source of resolve for its advocates.
In early December a Conservative led government in Westminster announced a proposal to allow same-sex marriages for those religious organisations that want it. Meanwhile across the channel, President Hollande’s socialist government wishes to legalise same-sex marriage and adoption by June, but has met both a political and public opposition that has burgeoned and become increasingly intransigent.
In a country more famed in the popular imagination for its promotion of liberal agendas, a group of approximately 300,000 protestors marching to the Eiffel Tower on 14th January in opposition to the Bill would suggest strong countervailing attitudes.
That oppositional groups in the UK have been vocal is of little doubt. For the Anglican churches this has even won them their minor victories of exclusion from the proposal. These victories have failed to win over the public to their arguments however. Although polls vary substantially, most indicate an increase in public support for same-sex marriage in recent years with at least 55 per cent in favour as of the latest YouGov polls.
The Church has also run the risk of increasing marginalisation at times through its methods. When a year ago the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, suggested that allowing homosexual couples to wed would show David Cameron to be acting as a ‘dictator’ there was immediate condemnation. There were even to be some self-proclaimed traditionalists among those shrewdest of observers who noted that authoritarian leaders aren’t famed for their support of minority rights.
Whilst a matter of contention internally for the Conservatives, as a sign of the political consensus which it courts, support for the planned legislation encompasses the leadership of all three major parties.
In France, conversely, opposition to same-sex marriage has accumulated momentum lately, of which the confusingly named ‘Demo for All’ was the latest episode. Although this demonstration embraced the semantics of tolerance this broad-based movement has shown a more than occasional predilection for Semantu-esque discourse.
Last November the Paris Archbishop, Andre Vingt Trois, criticised the bill as ‘a sham that will smash the foundations of society’. Cardinal Phillipe Barbarin barely matched such measured restraint as he predicted a ‘complete breakdown in society’ arising in ‘polygamy, paedophilia and incest’.
Politically, the issue has been a polarising one too. Divided along lines of right and left, the conservative former Prime Minister Francois Fillon has pledged to reverse the law in the event of regaining office. Beyond political strategy, 100 mayors have signed a petition insisting upon their right to refuse to preside over same-sex marriages.
Far from having been met with indifference this energetic drive has made significant headway. Polls indicate a fall of 10 per cent among those approving the change, with fewer than half supporting gays’ winning of adoption rights.
That these occasionally alarmist arguments, even when couched in the language of bigotry, have failed to take root in the UK whilst finding fertile ground in the land of ‘Liberté, égalité et fraternité isn’t to indulge in a self-congratulatory celebration of our national capacity for tolerance. Rather, it comes as a warning that with sufficient force of repetition, and the weight of authority, advocates of intolerance remain effective contenders.
20 Jan ’13 at 11:48 pm
Billy Jean says:
This article, whilst seemingly factual, places a big amount of weight behind the idea that gay marriage must happen. That it would be wrong if it does not. One way to highlight this ,as the article states, is via the fact that the public are in support with 55% for gay marriage. However when one looks at the poll cited it is evident that the poll has differing states of agreement “strongly” and “tending to”. When one sees the figures the “strongly” does not read as a terribly high figure whereas the “tending to” does. Not only does this demonstrate a lack of strong decision from the public but also a sense of potential swing. Therefore I urge you that when you write you write with clarity and professionalism, not the first fact you can find to support what you believe…even if what you believe is shown in what is meant to be portrayed as a factual article.
21 Jan ’13 at 6:35 pm
SS says:
Just because people do not want to follow contemporary society’s views does not make them bigots.
21 Jan ’13 at 8:27 pm
Matt Sharp says:
“Just because people do not want to follow contemporary society’s views does not make them bigots”
It does if they can’t actually justify opposing, say, gay marriage or gay adoption, on any practical grounds.
21 Jan ’13 at 10:37 pm
SS says:
@Matt Sharp
I personally don’t care if gay people get married our not.
But there are many practical grounds why they should not.
I think you even known the reasons deep down.
21 Jan ’13 at 10:38 pm
SS says:
*correction*
I personally don’t care if gay people get married or not.
22 Jan ’13 at 4:40 am
Timothy Canezaro says:
True Marriage is being distorted by various politicians both socialist and democratic parties. Marriage is under attack and efforts to change what is natural and sacred for the purposes of making it available to all, any, and every kind of relationship is a thumbing of the nose towards the Creator.
France inspired the world with those nearly million people that marched in Paris last Sunday. Catholics were joined by Sikhs, Muslims, Protestants, and Jews. Praying people united in a good way to honor Marriage & Family.
22 Jan ’13 at 12:35 pm
Matt Sharp says:
SS, as Timothy has so wonderfully demonstrated, the majority of opposition to gay marriage comes from religious types.
The only practical grounds that I can think of why gay shouldn’t get married is a reason why *no one* should get married: it shouldn’t require the state to legislate on a relationship. But since we let straight people get married, we should let everyone, regardless of gender and orientation.
Timothy, how does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?:
http://bobcargill.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/535132_10150690521932395_705822394_8026655_1008504104_n.jpg
22 Jan ’13 at 2:56 pm
Billy Jean says:
@matt sharp
how you can compare racism with this issue is remarkably stupid and naïve. Especially relating to what Timothy has stated. Nowhere do religions state that racism is right, and they never did. However they do have views over marriage as being something given by a creator. People were racist in the past, and wrongly so, but to compare the two is simplistic and wrong.
22 Jan ’13 at 3:19 pm
Matt Sharp says:
“Nowhere do religions state that racism is right, and they never did.”
Apart from when the Bible was used to justify slavery:
http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/opinion/hot-topics/x1171119743/Gay-marriage-debate-The-Bible-was-once-used-to-justify-slavery-too
22 Jan ’13 at 6:07 pm
luis rodrigues coelho says:
No doubt that the amjority of british people are not keen on gay marriage. In fact, most gay people do not want to wed. This is a wicked maouvre from the gay agenda to undermine and destroy catholic teaching. The issue here is not the anglican church, which has been falling to all sorts of anti-christian agendas over time (no wonder, the anglican church was born out of a division, out of rebellion – an anti-christian attitude); we always have to look ahead and see what liberals want. by passing gay marriage, the catholic church will be undermined in it’s teachings…although Mr cameron said that some churches will not be forced or prosecuted, we all know that politicians do lie all the time and of course the catholic clergy will be taken to court if they refuse to wed gay people..this is so obvious…only falls for mr cameron lies, those who are asleep or are naive.
22 Jan ’13 at 9:19 pm
Angavu Ngog says:
Why do gays need to get married anyway? Aren’t they ‘chuffed’ enough (pun intended) with civil partnerships?
23 Jan ’13 at 5:31 pm
Simon Greyhound says:
@Angavu Ngog
Civil partnerships suggests there is something ‘different’ about gay love to straight love.
Marriage is showng the world that you love that person enough to commit to being with them forever.
Homosexuals who want to get married and who love each other do not devalue marriage.
The hundreds of people who take into it lightly and get divorced a year later do.
All views apposed to accepting others equally end up looking disgusting 50 years later.
People need to accept that soon this will ll look as bad as when black people couldn’t marry white people!
2 Feb ’13 at 11:21 am
Billy Jean says:
@matt sharp
Yes but that is people taking it completely out of context. And you know that. Christian or not everyone can see slavery was wrong.
2 Feb ’13 at 2:13 pm
Common Sense Time says:
@Matt Sharp
Your picture there shows an image of racist protestors next to an image of Christian protestors saying “Imagine how stupid you’ll look in 40 years”. This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen. Its sole basis for saying that Christian protestors are stupid is that some other guys protested 40 years ago about something bad. You then say that this means that people who support a stricter concept of marriage will be/are on ‘the wrong side of history’.
I’m going to wreck my head and try to work through what you’re saying here. 1) we have a picture of people protesting 40 years ago. 2) we have a picture of people protesting now. 3) this means that the people protesting now are wrong, because the people protesting 40 years ago were wrong.
First of all, the only thing in common between the two pictures is that they have people protesting something in it. That’s it. The rest is all your opinion (an opinion which isn’t channelled through the image itself, it’s all done in a “well clearly it’s self-evident” manner). So, a bunch of guys protest 40 years ago, and a bunch of guys protest now, and so you link the morality of two separate groups together?
Okay. Sure. Why not.
For eff’s sake, think. I mean, a lot of protests happened 40 years ago which we now think are pretty good – people who protested against the war in Vietnam did so approximately 40 years ago, they’re not held to be on “the wrong side of history”. You could just as easily slot in a picture of a group of anti-war protestors from 40 years ago for all the links it has with the modern-day discussion on marriage.
Furthermore, as the only link between the two pictures is ‘people protesting stuff’, if we’re going to take this seriously (which is a really painful exercise) it means that the ‘bad thing’ happening in the pictures is the protesting itself. So what, protesting is wrong? In the same vane as the above point (that you could replace the 40-years-ago picture with ANY protest for all the relevance it has), you could replace the modern-day protest picture there with ANY modern protest – Hell, you may as well slot in a picture of gay rights activists and it’d make just as much sense.
Oh, wait, hold on! Maybe this is about the OTHER brilliantly insightful link you put up, saying that the church was directly responsible for slavery. First of all, great job, you’ve found a link on the internet – I’m sure it completely blows all opposition out of the water, being an article in a newspaper and all (can’t argue with a dude with a newspaper column; he’s way better than an ‘academic’ or something). Second, you seem to live in this weird historical wonderland where people who didn’t own a Bible never bloodied their hands with the slave-trade. No-one ever got offered a slave in the 1700s and said “No thanks, we’re atheist”. Slavery is the sin of nations, not religions – anyone who tries to push onto a denomination is only trying to make themselves feel better about their own history; you want to believe that you would have stood tall and proud back then and not taken a slave. Well, if you were white and had the money, you probably would have taken a slave like everyone else. Deal with it, learn from it, get off your high horse and reflect on it like the rest of us. I honestly don’t blame you for wanting to feel good about yourself, I just think it’s a bad idea to become too wrapped up in your own sense of moral greatness. Third, the leading (and for a long time, only) proponent of the abolition of slavery in England did so because of his conversion to Evangelical Christianity. William Wilberforce was essentially inspired by his faith in God to liberate his fellow man. Doesn’t excuse the rest of us who took slaves, doesn’t excuse any religious people who took slaves, but it does go some way against blaming the ENTIRE SLAVE TRADE on Christians.
2 Feb ’13 at 6:25 pm
Matt Sharp says:
@Common Sense Time:
There is a stronger connection between the 2 images than merely ‘a bunch of guys protest 40 years ago, and a bunch of guys protest now’.
Some people opposed inter-racial marriages for Biblical reasons. Others, by looking at the picture, appeared to be claiming inter-racial marriage is wrong because it’s ‘communism’ (though this may have simply been an attempt to associate one ‘bad’ thing with another thing the protestors didn’t like, rather than truly believing it was ‘communistic’). The Biblical reasoning is unjustified in a secular society. The association with communism is fear-mongering.
Today, you get people claiming that gay marriage is wrong for Biblical reasons. Some also seem to think gay marriage will cause the breakdown of society. The Biblical reasoning is unjustified in a secular society. The latter claim is fear-mongering.
Your final paragraph is a wonderful, hysterical rant, that is based on a misinterpretation of my previous post. At no point did I attempt to blame ‘the ENTIRE SLAVE TRADE on Christians’, or claim that non-Christians took no part in slavery. I’m not sure how you could come to that conclusion. I simply stated that the Bible has been used to justify slavery; which it has. The point being that just because the Bible is used to support something doesn’t mean we should pay any attention to it.
3 Feb ’13 at 8:17 am
SS says:
@Matt Sharp
With all due respect, you lost this one.
3 Feb ’13 at 8:39 pm
JM says:
@SS
“But there are many practical grounds why they should not.
I think you even known the reasons deep down.” – With all due respect, maybe you should back up your vacuous argument with practical reasons rather than just vague posturing before you assert your ‘victory’.
Name me one justifiable reason why homosexuals should not be afforded exactly the same rights as everyone else? Are they not citizens too?
By the way, Matt Sharp is right; the Bible was indeed used as a moral justification for slavery. ‘The Curse of Ham’ story in Genesis was used extensively prior to the Civil War to justify slavery as a biblically condoned, recognized and regulated practice, a practice which the Bible accepted as a normal aspect of the culture of the Middle East.
If you don’t believe me you can look it up.
2 Mar ’13 at 12:10 pm
paola says:
Look, this is so absurd that I cannot still believe it. Of course, gays have the right to marry if they want it, but not adopt. A child to feel secure needs a mother and a father. No matter how accomplished sb gets who had same-sex parents, there will always be a part missing either it is a mother or a father. And the most important of all, how can they even consider deleting the words mother and father???? what are chilren-robots to call others parent one or parent two???? and later what??? there will be a parent three??? the most important words in our history are going to be insignificant???? the words that are our first. Even if all these laws are legislated, how can they force the french households CHANGE?? what if Maria(eg) wants to continue be a mother and not parent no1. Is mr Holland going to force her to destroy her family???? is he going to force her be a strange for her own son/daughter???