There will always be people who protest against progress. Those stuck in the past, who will inevitably find themselves on the wrong side of history (hell, they’re on the wrong side of present-day beliefs!). It’s especially ironic to see people saying they’re “pro-marriage” whilst protesting about extending the right to marry to more people. That doesn’t seem particularly pro-marriage to me.
The French (and I speak as one with a certain amount of Gallic blood in my arteries) love a nice protest.
Of course, it’s all fairly disgusting. The pink balloons being a delightfully fascist design statement. And the whole revolting spectacle will make not one iota of difference.
As, now the Christian Institute (and its C4M sock-puppet) facebook page will soon be filled with barely literate comments: “the frenchies hav got the rite idea. thay show us the path two follo four jesis.”
Religion: it’s lovely, innit?
[Yup, I have seen both follow and Jesus mis-spelled in this way, there! ;D]
Was just reading about this right-wing demonstration, when today’s very apt Russian ‘phrase of the day’ popped up on my Mac:
“Крикливое меньшинство обычно не представляет собой большинство.”
Translation: “The vocal minority do not represent the majority in most cases.”
The majority don’t care whether you get married or not. That’s the truth of it. I would never ever protest or vote against gay marriage, however, I think it is ridiculous to be FOR it. It’s an irrelevancy. Marriage is nothing. Who in their right mind thinks that it has any meaning? It’s the relationship not the slip of paper, and if it’s about legal rights, the civil partnerships give them.
Public indifference is the only sane response.
So those who do not subscribe to your opinion are by inference ridiculous, and/or insane. Interesting debating technique!
You are entitled to your view. I don’t share it. And it’s pretty much a done deal in the UK, so…
Sam, I think you’re corect that the majority don’t really care. Says a lot for the apathey the world currently suffers.
Gay marriage means more than symbolic rites. It weakens the extremists vantage point from a religious stance of holier than thou.
Those who are so bothered to take to their cries to the streets are driven by a religious hysteria that is becoming out of control. Those institutions by the way who pay no taxes and are attempting to force feed their twisted understandings onto the general public and the governments.
These anti protestors are so ridiculous in their cherry picked arguments. If they value the traditional institution of marriage so dearly then surely they must also abolish divorce, single parenthood, polygamy, choice, whacky weddings suspended from bungie cords, Vegas… to name a few
That is intellectualizing for everyone; but, not everyone is of that mindset and support for equality should be fought on every level of consciousness.
It is not an irrelevancy Sam. That is a very apathetic comment to make although one I fear is rampant in today’s society.
Gay equality rights have made significant international progresses over the years but it is apathy that feeds the religious and the ignorant.
Gay marriage is more than a symbolic rite. It is another step forward to absolute equality.
These religious groups are attempting mass hysteria world wide. They are divisive in their perversion of ancient texts and are using fear to strike a chord with both public and governments.
These religious groups I might add, who pay no taxes and are altogether the richest orginisations in the modern world. Look at the state of Uganda, Nigeria, Russia..the arguments are ridiculous as one would expect from these fear driven mobs. If the sacred rights of marriage must be so upheld then I want to see them also protesting against divorce, single parenthood, polygamy, choice, remarrying…
No more apathy please.
Oops, thought my original comment had disappeared. Pardon the repetition.
There’s nothing sacred about marriage in my view.
But the same-sex marriage debate, well, I believe it’s not something the majority of people can bring themselves to get worked up about one way or another.
But that’s OK-me and others like me are NOT your enemy putting stuff in your way to stop you marrying, it’s just it’s not really that important especially when there are true abuses of gay people who are being tortured or killed for their sexuality.
What’s it all about, really, civil partnerships do provide same legal rights, it’s just about being known as married.
Do you really expect anybody to get passionate about this right? C’mon it’s irrelevant.
Sam, sure civil partnerships afford most ( not all) rights as marriages but push for the civil marriage for gay couples is about equality. in other words i don’t support idea of civil marriage just because i want to get married i support it because i want equality. again civil partnerships are not what equality looks like.
Separate isn’t equal, Sam. If it’s just about legal rights then there’s no need whatsoever to have a different name for the legal union of two people of the same sex. We don’t have a different name for different races getting married – that’d be stupid. They’re all just civil marriages. So why should gay people be forced to have something different?
Would you like a different name for every legal thing a gay person entered into? Let’s not allow gay people to have mortgages, let’s call them something else merely because of sexuality; let’s not allow gay people to have things called ‘bank accounts’, we’ll label them differently; let’s not allow gay people to make Wills because they’re Not Like Us so they can’t have a Will, we’ll have to think of a different name….
People shouldn’t be treated differently just because of their sexuality. That’s the bottom line. Everybody should have the option of a civil marriage, whether they choose to take it or not.
Civil Partnerships do not give couples the same rights as married couples and under the law civil partner is not the same as married and can be used to distinguish rights and benefits between opposite sex and same sex couples when determining and adjudicating laws. The bigots (sorry politicians) in Northern Ireland have successfully used the difference to deny same sex couples the right to adopt
“Who in their right mind thinks that it has any meaning?”
Well clearly the two people who wish to celebrate their relationship do and it’s a choice that should be there, to choose to marry or not to, not a chose for some and not others.
Well the back of the bus may be a more comfortable place to ride, no question. But the problem is being told that you must sit at the back of the bus.
I sometimes wonder if the “I’m happy with civil partnership people” may now reconsider when faced with such vitriolic opposition from the haters?
See this is the kind of hysteria that is so off-putting. ‘Back of the bus’ presumably applies to the black civil rights issue-a deeply important issue..
What’s gay marriage about? Being known as ‘married’ as opposed to civilly-partnered.
You cannot expect people to give a fig either way about that; this is not about the torture or abuse of gay people or section 28 -which are very important.
I have no vitriolic hatred of gay marriage, it’s no big deal if gay people get married to me, however, I’m not going to pretend that is an important issue.
I’m afraid the negative points I’ve received here only reinforces your enemies view (not mine; I won’t stand in your way) that you really DO want not only to have gay marriage but FORCE everybody else to share your enthusiasm for it, too.
It’s clear that saying ‘hey, I don’t care about it at all, but whatever, if that’s what you want, go ahead’ is not good enough.
it is irrelevant what majority wants or thinks about ssm. civil marriage for gay couples is about equality and equality is afforded (not debated) to all regardless of sexuality
Actually, given that marriage is about PUBLIC recognition of a relationship, I’d have thought their views did matter, I just think that not giving a **** either way-which is a completely ‘live as you want and marry if that’s what you desire, but I don’t care’ reasonable attitude to have, is not good enough.
Not only do you want people to not get in your way and let you get married-fair enough, we all have to positively embrace it, too.
marriage according to UN’s charter of universal human rights is a right and to deny universal human right to minority just because majority decided
so is real fascism
Shows what you actually know about Civil Partnerships then. They are NOT the same and are not equal to marriage.
Got to make a note of that. How wonderfully appropriate in this argument. I was just thinking that millions of people live in France but these mere ‘thousands’ protesting get all the attention.
According to the bbc ,and we all know how unreliable and biased their inferior journalism is against less popular minorities ?
And they didn’t bother telling us who arranged this protest. It must have come from somewhere.
“it included members of the catholic church”
Like they didn’t have the idea?
Or did all these angry people just all decide on Saturday morning they wanted to all protest at the same time?
Any gay protest would be identified as such. It would be clear that the protest was an interest group. This protest is being portrayed like a spontaneous eruption.
I don’t know why you lifted the line about the protesters supporting traditional family rights from other reports. That is clearly their own spin. They are not backers of any sort of rights. They like to phrase their campaign against adoption as a child having a right to a mother and a father but no such right exists. We don’t confiscate children from single parents.
100,000 is approximately 0.15% of the French population.
It’s also a 1000 times more than the 100 (some apparently violent) people who turned out to protest against the main protest in the French capital.
Pointless comment considering the Majority of France voted this man in with Marriage Equality as part of his Election Manifesto.
So? This was supposed to be the big event against gay marriage showing that the French people didn’t want it and would stand up to the government over this issue. In the end apart from a few hardcore religionists the French seem to have given a great big gallic shrug.
“It’s also a 1000 times more than the 100 (some apparently violent) people who turned out to protest against the main protest in the French capital.”
And a 1000 time smaller than a Gay Pride march on a bad day.
Actually it’s closer to 0.00153% of the French population :-) It’s irrelevant – it’s even 0.0447% of the population of Paris.. More people voted for Le Pen in the last presidential election than marched in this parade.
More reliable sources put the number at 15,000 to 20,000…. Not 70,000.
Listen to what one of the protesters had to say,it is both funny and disturbing.
Marc, a 60-year-old Parisian who said he was a fervent Catholic, called the government hypocritical. “They all have wives and children. So they understand perfectly well what kind of deviations would result from the approval of gay marriages.”
The idiot doesn’t understand that there are hetero widows and widowers with children, some of whom never remarry. What next, force them to give their children up for adoption. This is so transparent what’s going on with those demonstrations. It’s nothing more than homophobia, pure and simple. Ironic when you consider it’s not even about religious marriage because in France, there isn’t any such thing, just a volunatry solemnisation of a civil marriage (the only legal one) already performed.
Sorry, Robert. Meant to give you a +. Damn cursor jumped at the last second!
““pro-marriage, not ant-gay.””? What hypocrites… of course they’re anti-gay!
Anyone who treats another as second class is bigoted and discriminating.
Fact is this President was elected with Marriage Equality firmly and openly in France’s grasp. If the majority didn’t want it they wouldn’t have voted him in. It’s no good the minority moaning about things they already knew about.
Same goes for here in the UK really!!
It is interesting that they feel they have to state that they are not anti gay.
They probably all have a gay friend too.
That isn’t true actually. The only parties to my knowledge in Britain that put this proposal in their last manifesto were the Liberal Democrats,
the Greens and no doubt the small left-wing parties. The present shower that laughingly refers to itself as a ‘government’ was formed after the election so somebody who voted Tory last time wasn’t voting for gay marriage as I am not aware that the Tories had this in their manifesto. This lot have a dubious democratic mandate to put it mildly.
What has happened to the great values the French hold so dearly of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity? It seems like some are trying to return the Republic to the slavery under the Bourbons! France stand proud and embrace freedom for your citizens, not slavery to the Catholic Bishops.
“Pro marriage – not Anti Gay”? I am pro marriage myself. I cannot see any reason why gay people cannot get married!
Funnily enough, the anti LGBT stance is the one thing that the Front National and the country’s large Muslim population seem to agree upon. It is yet again a case of having a “common enemy”.
Thousands? Is that all they could Muster? A handful of extremists who prefer religious prejudices over fair treatment for all.
“A child needs a father and a mother, he needs the paternal and the maternal side and with this bill that might not be possible any more,” said Marthe Vignault, who attended the protest.
Clearly Marthe Vignault should campaigning for the introduction of laws to outlaw single parenthood. On her twisted theory of natural law, women should undergo formal fertility testing along with their proposed future husbands.
Should either party fail, they should be debarred from marrying.
And also the French government should round up all the children of single parents and take them into the care of the French government until suitable married familes can be found to rehome them.
just what I was going to say, Paul. That quote really annoyed me. The vast majority of children without parents of both genders are children of unmarried mothers or divorced parents. But that doesn’t seem to concern these people at all. Their prejudice blinds them – only gay people can be bad in their woolly little brains. Or else they just like a minority to pick on and realise that the number of straight singles parents and divorcees is far too high to pick on.
The French do love to take to the streets in protest. It’s a healthy part of their culture. Less healthy is the slightly creepy conservatism and fear of the outside world that much of France is still steeped in. Thankfully, it seems that, for most French, Equal Marriage is not a problem.
I don’t recall the Catholics or Christians taking to the streets when the French government rounded up all the gypsies, destroyed their encampments and sent them home or imprisoned them.
Or not protests when an ex Natzi youth party member elected himself as Pope…
I think that some thousands in a country of around 65 millions is not a lot. President Hollande must go on, as he promised before the elections. Here, in Greece, we ask for bailout from openly gay ministers, in marriage or civil partnership with same-sex companions and the situation is bad, lets say not horrible, but with a strong possibility to worsen.
Oh, dear, beloved sophisticated France is full of homophobes who don’t want us contaminating their ‘sacred’ institution either!
I shan’t think of Paris with so much fondness any longer.
“Pro marriage” in the same way the people protesting against interracial marriage were (“It’s not that we hate you, dears, it’s just marriage is special and not for people like you.”)
What arrogant people they must be – and hateful too. I hope the French government ignores them as the irrelevance they are. Pro-marriage but want to restrict marriage? Idiots – and I hope someone points that out to them.
If they are so concerned about children having a mother and a father why don’t they ban single parent families?
Or if a parent dies why not remove the child from their single parent and place them with two parents, or force the widow/widower to remarry?
There are many instances of accepted single parenting among the catholic right wings in france. No problem there.
One of main organizers of this was attractive guy by name Xavier Bongibault, activist of center-right party UMP (this of ex-president Sarkozy) and, yes, very openly gay… Liberte, indeed.
France’s own little embryonic Ken Mehlman.
Let us hope that this 21-year-old will now find himself so unwelcome on Grindr that he starts to appreciate the benefits of marriage after all.
I can’t understand such people motivation. It’s like if a black guy organized protest against irracial marriages.
It’s amazing that the French have a very liberal attitude towards hetero adulterers. Francois Mitterand paraded his paramour around and yet not a word of condmenation from these religious fanatics. It’s beyond hypocrisy, more to do with bigotry and homophobia, full stop.
Why Mr. Mitterand (who was more or less homophobic, has found no words about Aids epidemic, and, yes, its ironic, perhaps his two families, very Conservative in his life style) was not ‘condemned’ by public or Church? The answer is very simple: because he was straight. The big mission of heterosexual man in this world is – his biological function, and if way of this is not very ‘ethical’ or whatever, well, its no so bad. Gay men is all ways ‘unethical’, because with his life he reject this ‘mission’.
It is not a liberal attitude – it is that private activities are no-one’s business. France is very conservative.
If more people get married the it is likely more married couples will adopt children. Gay married couples can feed and love a child the same as a straight couple. Why not? The anti-gay Christians are trying to stop gays from getting married because they do not want to include them in their idea of family values. It is time to change and include gay married couples to adopt the thousands of homeless children that even all the straight Christians can not help or care for, so somebody has to and that is the gay married couple. Why would anybody in their right mind stop a child from being adopted by a married gay couple who can feed and love the child? These anti-gay Christians are oppressive towards not only gays but the homeless children that need a loving family and home and not all anti-gay Christians can or will take care of all the children with out homes. Some of these children will die for lack of food and love and a home.
Good to see the Catholic church out protesting about high unemployment, homelessness, child poverty, unsafe neighbourhoods, violence in Syria, climate change…
…no, wait. They’re protesting because my MARRIAGE is going to precipitate the end of the world.
Help repeal DOMA! We need 25,000 signatures by Dec. 7th! Sign the petition! https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/repeal-defense-marriage-act-doma/SyQNZXNM Already signed the petition? Get the word out!
Almost half a million poeple marched to stop the ban on fox hunting back in 2002 and that didn’t have any effect.
The French, who are constantly protesting about something in the street, got a measly 70,000 for this march. I don’t think the majority socialist govt is going to take much notice of them.
“Yes, that’s right !! Let’s not give rights to other people, even if giving them rights doesn’t restrict or affect our own rights in any way !!”
So these bigots must also support the idea of banning all opposite-sex marriages that aren’t procreative, right? Yeah, that’s what I thought. When have opposite-sex couples EVER been obligated or required to have children once they get married?