Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent

Estimated 1 million+ march in Paris against gay ‘marriage’ plans

Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits
Image

January 14, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A million. And more. The turnout for this Sunday’s demonstration against French President François Hollande’s move to legalize same-sex “marriage” reached gigantic and even un-hoped for proportions.

Paris was covered with blue, white and pink flags marking grassroot France’s opposition to the unthinkable, as three apparently endless distinct marches converged at the foot of the Eiffel tower.

The triple itinerary was mandated by the Parisian police, and was seen by many as an attempt by the minister of the Interior to weaken the event visually by dividing its forces. It turned out to be a Godsend.

The first demonstrators started leaving the three departure points an hour before intended, at noon, but even so, the last marchers didn't start until 4 p.m. Thousands upon thousands of people slowly covered the three to four mile-long routes, stopping and going as if in a traffic jam because of their sheer numbers.

At half past two, the minister for Social affairs, Marisol Touraine, announced that the turnout was far less than the organizers had hoped. At 5 p.m. official figures were given out by the police: 340,000 participants. That was half their real count: unofficial sources from police headquarters say the “Préfecture” had actually counted 700,000, but had received orders to halve the figure.

However, according to some reports even the 700,000 estimate may have fallen far short of the mark.

The demonstrators kept streaming towards the gigantic Champ de Mars which can hold some 800,000 people, and which was filled to overflowing with a rotating crowd of demonstrators. Many left the march before its destination, discouraged by the melting snow that was falling by then or obliged to catch trains, planes or buses to resume work on Monday.

By 11 p.m. a number of officials at the Préfecture rebelled, according to unofficial sources, and reported estimates of as many as 1.2 to 1.4 million.

The French government has been doing its best to downplay the spectacular success of the “Manif pour tous.” Socialist party members and ministers have been repeating since Sunday that the proposition will not be scrapped, whatever happens.

The government’s official spokeswoman, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, said it was “totally determined” to go on with its reform of marriage, calling it a “historical progress”. The minister for Justice, Christiane Taubira, accused the demonstrators of deliberately ignoring the language of the draft law that bears her name and said it would be sufficient to make its real wording known to the French to dissipate their concern.

The law explicitly allows same-sex “marriage” and adoption by homosexual couples.

President François Hollande’s spokesman also said that the draft law will be presented to the Parliament by the end of January. Socialist majorities both in the Senate and the National Assembly are expected to vote for the text, while a complete review of family law is to be presented in March. Among other things, this will include more widespread access to in vitro fertilization and other procreative techniques claimed by homosexual minorities.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

But who were the million protesters who spent time, energy and money – in an economically depressed time– to come and say “no” to same-sex “marriage”?

Large numbers of elected town and village mayors and counselors - those who would have to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in the event of it being legalized - marched with their blue, red and white official scarves. There were also a number of opposition figureheads, including - strangely enough - Simone Veil, the author and promoter of the French abortion law in 1974.

If Frigide Barjot, the provocative self-appointed figurehead of Sunday’s march is to be believed, many of them were atheists, Jews, Protestants, leftwing voters, and homosexuals who are against gay “marriage.” Those were the only groups she greeted and thanked from the gigantic podium at the foot of the Eiffel tower.

However, Cardinal Vingt-Trois of Paris came to greet the marchers at Denfert-Rochereau. Cardinal Philippe Barbarin of Lyon also joined the march, condemning the “violence” of the law that would “change the meaning of a word”.

“This law is violently harming a nation. It will not mean progress for France,” he said.

Several bishops came – including Mgr Aillet from Bayonne and Mgr Centène from the south of Britanny – as well as countless priests and religious.

The majority of Sunday’s protesters were Catholics. Old and young, rich and poor, from every corner of France, rural areas and towns, they responded to calls from nearly every French bishop to voice their opposition to same-sex “marriage.” Many large families traveled far and long by car or bus. People who had never demonstrated in their lives discovered the joy of defending their faith and their ideals together.

However, organizers had made clear that any demonstration of faith would immediately be stifled: only approved banners and slogans were allowed.

“One Daddy, one Mommy: never lie to a child!” read one. “Marriage: one man, one woman or nothing,” went another. “We are all born of a man and a woman,” “One Dad + one Mom: that’s elementary,” “Don’t touch the civil code,” “I’m a child, not a right”, “Made in Mom and Dad,” “I need a Dad and a Mom,” read others.

Besides opposing same-sex “marriage,” one of the march’s more controversial objectives was, according to organizers, to fight “homophobia.”

Frigide Barjot, as well as several of the event’s homosexual spokespeople, publicly affirmed when talking to the media that they were in favor of a “civil union” for homosexuals that can be conducted in town halls just like marriages, and which would include all the rights and obligations of marriage except filiation. That is a minority view among opponents of same-sex “marriage,” however, and many are hoping for clarification in the coming weeks.

Last week the defeated UMP party of Nicolas Sarkozy’s introduced an amendment that would create a “civil union” aimed at the homosexual community.

This author joined a small group of demonstrators – a number of priests, Catholic journalists, a group dedicated to defending Christian’s rights (AGRIF), Christians converted from Islam, Oriental Christians and families – who decided to make their position clear on Sunday, wearing stickers that read: “For Christians, it’s NO to Taubira’s law, full stop.”

Volunteers for the march tried to make these demonstrators remove the unauthorized slogans, in vain. On Saturday evening, that same group had met with Brian Brown, the president of the U.S. organization National Organization for Marriage (NOM), who came over for the march.

Another march took place on Saturday at the call of Civitas, a civic association close to the Catholic traditionalist movement of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, which was joined by a large number of the more traditional Catholic movements and associations. Its slogans were pro-life and pro-family (“La famille, c’est sacré” – “Family is sacred”) and more confrontational than those of the mainstream “Manif pour tous”, such as: “No to the decadence of society.”

One of Frigide Barjot’s main worries was to avoid confusion between the two marches. Civitas’s march was presented as “extremist” and accused of hate-mongering because of one slogan seen at its previous demonstration on November 18th when a radical right-wing group joined its ranks with a banner proclaiming “France needs children, not homosexuals.” This time round no such banners were shown.

Many joined the 40 or 50 thousand-strong group in order to mark their disagreement with the ambiguous stances adopted by some of the organizers of the “Manif pour tous.”

Civitas, however, would never have been able to put one million people on the streets of Paris. And that million represents a force that the government cannot pretend to ignore, even if it does minimize it with the help of most of the mainstream media.

Those million marchers have brought proof that same-sex “marriage” is very widely rejected, whatever the polls say, and that they have been seething to make themselves heard since the proposal to legalize it has been put forward. They have also shown the enduring influence of the Catholic Church in France, and particularly of its bishops, who have made their voices heard on the marriage issue after decades of laying low on moral issues in the public square.

Whatever the failings of the organizers of the “Manif pour tous”, they have allowed opposition to same-sex “marriage” to score a major victory. This reporter saw the tail end of the Denfert-Rochereau walking past on Sunday evening at 7:10 p.m, with still over half a mile to go before reaching the esplanade at the foot of the Eiffel Tower. Marchers were still shouting, waving flags, smiling, and dancing on the parade trucks accompanying their progress, oblivious of the long night’s travelling that awaited many of them.

Proud to be there, and proud to be French!


Advertisement
Featured Image
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

‘It’s a miracle’: Newborn girl survives two days after being abandoned in a field

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

The survival of a baby who was abandoned by her mother and left in a field for two days has been described as "a miracle" by the doctor attending the newborn girl.

"She had been left alone naked, and weighed less than a kilogram, in part because she was so severely dehydrated," said Doctor Barbara Chomik at the hospital in the northern Polish city of Elblag, according to a report from Central European News.

"It is a miracle that she survived under those conditions for so long. It is simply a miracle," Dr. Chomik said.

The report said that the child's mother, Jolanta Czarnecka, 30, of Ilawa in northeastern Poland, had concealed her pregnancy from friends and fellow workers, and had given birth in a field during a lunch break, then returned to work.

When blood was noticed on her clothing, the woman at first claimed she had accidentally given birth in the toilet and the baby had gone down the drain.

However, when investigation found no evidence supporting her claims, Czarnecka admitted to having given birth to the child in a nearby field and leaving her there.

When searchers found the child, two days after her birth, the little girl was dehydrated and covered with insects.

Czarnecka is facing charges of attempted murder for allegedly abandoning her child.

Czarnecka, who has entered a not guilty plea to the charges against her, could be sentenced to five years in prison if she is convicted.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Because nothing says love quite like a whip and restraints, right? Shutterstock
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

To the Christians who think 50 Shades is all sorts of awesome: Please, stop and THINK

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

It’s pretty depressing when you realize that, in 2014, many people seem to think that destruction of human dignity is a small price to pay for an orgasm.

I suppose when I write a column about a book that just sold its 100 millionth copy I shouldn’t be surprised when I get a bit of a kickback. But I have to say—I wasn’t expecting hundreds of commenters, many saying they were Christian, to come out loudly defending the porn novel 50 Shades of Grey, often tastelessly interspersed with details from their own sex lives.

People squawked that we “shouldn’t judge” those who practice bondage, domination, sadism and masochism (BDSM), and informed me that “no one gets hurt” and that it “isn’t abuse” and said that it was “just fantasy” (as if we have a separate brain and body for fantasy).

Meanwhile, not a single commenter addressed one of the main arguments I laid out—that with boys watching violent porn and girls being socialized to accept violence and torture inside of a sexual relationship, we have created a toxic situation in which people very much are being hurt.

In response to the defenders of this trash, let me make just a few points.

  1. Not all consent is equal.

People keep trumpeting this stupid idea that just because someone consents to something or allows something to happen, it isn’t abusive.

But if someone consents to being beaten up, punched, slapped, whipped, called disgusting and degrading names, and have other things done to them that I will choose not to describe here, does that make it any less abusive? It makes it legal (perhaps, but it certainly doesn’t make it any less disgusting or violent.

Would you want your daughter to be in a relationship with Christian Grey? Would you want your son to turn into Christian Grey? If the answer is yes to either of those, someone should call social services.

Anyone who works with victims of domestic and sexual assault will tell you that just because someone permits something to happen or doesn’t extricate themselves from a situation doesn’t mean it isn’t, in fact, abuse. Only when it comes to sex are people starting to make this argument, so that they can cling to their fetishes and justify their turn-ons. Those women who defend the book because they think it spiced up their sex life are being incredibly selfish and negligent, refusing to think about how this book could affect other women in different situations, as well as young and impressionable girls.

In the words of renowned porn researcher and sociologist Dr. Gail Dines:

In his book on batterers, Lundy Bancroft provides a list of potentially dangerous signs to watch out for from boyfriends. Needless to say, Christian [Grey of 50 Shades of Grey] is the poster boy of the list, not only with his jealous, controlling, stalking, sexually sadistic behavior, but his hypersensitivity to what he perceives as any slight against him, his whirlwind romancing of a younger, less powerful woman, and his Jekyll-and-Hyde mood swings. Any one of these is potentially dangerous, but a man who exhibits them all is lethal.

The most likely real-world ending of Fifty Shades of Grey is fifty shades of black and blue. The awful truth in the real world is that women who partner with a Christian Grey often end up hightailing it to a battered women's shelter with traumatized kids in tow. The less fortunate end up in graveyards.

  1. 50 Shades of Grey normalizes intimate partner violence…

…and sickeningly, even portrays it as romantic and erotic. Amy Bonomi, Lauren Altenburger, and Nicole Walton published an article on the impact of 50 Shades last year in the Journal of Women’s Health. Their conclusions are intuitive and horrifying:

While intimate partner violence (IPV) affects 25% of women and impairs health, current societal conditions—including the normalization of abuse in popular culture such as novels, film, and music—create the context to support such violence.

Emotional abuse is present in nearly every interaction, including: stalking (Christian deliberately follows Anastasia and appears in unusual places, uses a phone and computer to track Anastasia’s whereabouts, and delivers expensive gifts); intimidation (Christian uses intimidating verbal and nonverbal behaviors, such as routinely commanding Anastasia to eat and threatening to punish her); and isolation (Christian limits Anastasia’s social contact). Sexual violence is pervasive—including using alcohol to compromise Anastasia’s consent, as well as intimidation (Christian initiates sexual encounters when genuinely angry, dismisses Anastasia’s requests for boundaries, and threatens her). Anastasia experiences reactions typical of abused women, including: constant perceived threat (“my stomach churns from his threats”); altered identity (describes herself as a “pale, haunted ghost”); and stressful managing (engages in behaviors to “keep the peace,” such as withholding information about her social whereabouts to avoid Christian’s anger). Anastasia becomes disempowered and entrapped in the relationship as her behaviors become mechanized in response to Christian’s abuse.

Our analysis identified patterns in Fifty Shades that reflect pervasive intimate partner violence—one of the biggest problems of our time. Further, our analysis adds to a growing body of literature noting dangerous violence standards being perpetuated in popular culture.

  1. Really? Sadism?

I notice that commenters rarely break down what the acronym “BDSM” actually stands for: bondage, domination, sadism, and masochism. If they did, they could no longer make the repulsive claim that “love” or “intimacy” have anything to do with it.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

The definition of sadism is “enjoyment that someone gets from being violent or cruel or from causing pain, especially sexual enjoyment from hurting or punishing someone…a sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others.”

As one of my colleagues noted, we used to send sadists to a therapist or to prison, not to the bedroom. And 100 million copies of this porn novel have been unleashed on our society informing people that getting off on hurting someone is romantic and erotic. It is a brutal irony that people who scream about water-boarding terrorists are watching and experimenting with sexual practices far more brutal. As one porn researcher noted, some online BDSM porn promotes practices and behaviors that would be considered unlawful under the Geneva Convention if they were taking place in a wartime context.

It seems the Sexual Revolutionaries have gone from promoting “safe sex” to “safe words”—just in case the pain gets too rough. And none of them seem to be volunteering information on just how a woman is supposed to employ a safe word with a gag or bondage headgear on.

But who cares, right? Just one more casualty on our culture’s new Sexual Frontier.

  1. “It’s just fiction and fantasy and has no effect on the real world!”

That’s total garbage and they know it. I’ve met multiple girls who were abused like this inside of relationships. Hotels are offering “50 Shades of Grey” packages replete with the helicopter and private suites for the proceedings. According to the New York Post, sales of rope exploded tenfold after the release of the book. Babeland reported that visits to the bondage section of their website spiked 81%, with an almost 30% increase in the sale of things like riding crops and handcuffs.

I could go on, but I won’t. As Babeland co-founder Claire Cavanah noted, “It’s like a juggernaut. You’d be surprised to see how very ordinary these people are who are coming in. The book is just an explosion of permission for them to try something new in the bedroom.”

  1. What does this book and the BDSM movement say about the value of women and girls?

I’d like the defenders of this book to try stop thinking with their nether-regions for just a moment and ask themselves a few simple questions: What does sadism and sexual torture (consensual or not) say to our culture about the value of girls? What does it say to boys about how they should treat girls? The youth of today are inundated with porn and sexually violent material—is nobody—nobody—at all worried about the impact this has on them? On the girls who are being abused by boys who think this is normal behavior—and think it is normal themselves?

Dr. Gail Dines relates that when speaking to groups of women who loved the book, they all grow deathly silent when she asks them two simple questions: Would you want your daughter to be in a relationship with Christian Grey? Would you want your son to turn into Christian Grey?

If the answer is yes to either of those, someone should call social services.

__

This book and the sadism it promotes are an assault on human dignity, and most of all an assault on the worth and value of girls and women. Please consider the impact you will have on your daughters and the vulnerable and confused people around you when you read and promote this book. Anastasia Steele is, thankfully, a fictional character. But real girls are facing these expectations and demands from a culture that elevates a sexual sadist to the level of a romantic hero. Ask yourselves if you want their “love” and “intimacy” to include sadism and domination, or real respect.

Because you can’t have both.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Ryan T. Anderson

,

New York Times reporter: ‘Anti-LGBT’ people ‘deserve’ incivility

Ryan T. Anderson
By Ryan Anderson

As I recounted Monday at The Daily Signal, The New York Times reporter Josh Barro thinks some people are “unworthy of respect.” Yesterday Barro doubled-down and tweeted back at me that “some people are deserving of incivility.” He argued that I am such a person because of my views about marriage policy. You can see the entire exchange on my twitter page.

What Josh Barro says or does doesn’t really affect me. I’m not a victim, and I’ll keep doing what I do. But incivility, accepted and entrenched, is toxic to a political community. Indeed, civility is essential for political life in a pluralistic society.

It also has deep roots.

The Hebrew Bible tells us that all people are made in the image and likeness of God and have a profound and inherent dignity. Sound philosophy comes to a similar conclusion: as rational beings capable of freedom and love, all human beings have intrinsic and inestimable worth. And so we should always treat people with respect and dignity—we should honor their basic humanity. We should always engage with civility—even when we sharply disagree with them. Faith and reason, the natural law and the divine law, both point to the same conclusion.

Just as I think the best of theology and philosophy point to the conclusion that we should always treat people with respect, so I think they show that marriage is the union of a man and a woman—and that redefining marriage will undermine the political common good.

The work that I’ve done for the past few years for The Heritage Foundation has been at the service of explaining why I think this to be the case. Bookish by nature, I thought the best contribution I could make to public life was to help us think about marriage. So while my early work after college was in philosophy and bioethics, and my graduate coursework was in the history of political philosophy, I put my dissertation about economic and social justice on hold so I could devote myself to this debate at this crucial time.

Along with my co-authors, a classmate of mine from Princeton and a professor of ours there, we set out to write a book making what we considered the best philosophical argument for what marriage is and why it matters. Our book seemed to help the Supreme Court think about the issue, as Justice Samuel Alito cited it twice. The reason I’ve written various and sundry policy papers for Heritage, and traveled across the country speaking on college campuses, and appeared on numerous news shows (including, of course, Piers Morgan) is that I know the only way forward in our national debate about marriage is to make the arguments in as reasonable and civil a spirit as possible.

Some people, like Barro, want to do everything they can to shut down this discussion. They want to demonize those who hold contrary viewpoints. They want to equate us with racists and claim we are unworthy of respect and ought to be treated with incivility. This is how bullies behave. In all of recorded history, ours is the first time where we can have open and honest conversations about same-sex attraction and marriage. This discussion is just beginning. It is nowhere near being over.

All our fellow citizens, including those identifying as LGBT, should enjoy the full panoply of civil rights—the free exercise of religion, freedoms of speech and press, the right to own property and enter into contracts, the right to vote and have a fair trial, and every other freedom to live as they choose, consistent with the common good.

Government redefinition of marriage, however, is not a civil right—nor will redefining marriage serve the common good. Indeed, redefining marriage will have negative consequences.

We make our arguments, in many fora, as transparently as possible. We welcome counterarguments. And we strive to treat all people with the dignity and respect they deserve as we carry on this conversation.

One of the most unfortunate parts of my exchange with Barro last night was his reaction toward those who identify as LGBT and aspire to lives of chastity. They freely choose to live by their conviction that sex is reserved for the marital bond of a husband and wife. Some of them also seek professional help in dealing with and perhaps even diminishing (not repressing) their same-sex sexual desires.

I have written in their defense and against government coercion that would prevent them from receiving the help they desire, as New Jersey and California have done. Barro describes my support for their freedom as “sowing misery…doing a bad thing to people…making the world worse.”

There really is anti-LGBT bigotry in the world. But Barro does a disservice to his cause when he lumps in reasonable debates about marriage policy and the pastoral care that some same-sex attracted persons voluntarily seek out as, in his words, “anti-LGBT.” If we can’t draw a line between real bigotry and reasonable disagreement, we’re not helping anyone.

This debate isn’t about restricting anyone’s personal freedom. However it goes, people will remain free to live their romantic lives as they choose. So too people who experience same-sex attraction but aspire to chastity should be free to lead their lives in line with their beliefs, and to seek out the help they desire. We can have a civil conversation about which course of action is best—but let’s leave aside the extremism.

Barro asks, “Why shouldn’t I call you names?” My answer is simple: you should not practice the disdain and contempt you claim to abhor.

All my life, I’ve been educated at left-leaning institutions. Most of my friends disagree with me about these issues. But they’re still friends. And their feedback has made me a better person.

My final tweet to Barro is where I still remain committed: “people on all sides of LGBT debates and marriage debates need to find a way to discuss these issues without demonizing anyone.”

Reprinted with permission from the Daily Signal, where you can find Ryan Anderson's Twitter exchange with Barro.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook