Queerty is better as a member
ONE COUNTRY, ONE STATE AT A TIME! THEY CAN’T STOP THE MOMENTUM!
We’re here, we’re queer – we’re gonna get married!
Wonderful news! Now, let’s see how the religious reactionaries in France handle this.
would be nice if you put the list up of all 14 countries…
Given the collapsing popular mandate for this legislation being evinced by recent opinion polls, and the degree to which street demonstrations and violent anti-gay attacks in opposition to it have overwhelmingly dwarfed those in favour, my chief concern now is that this new law could easily be repealed by the Opposition parties if they should regain government.
There is every reason to fear this. It’s clear the French government has completely misread the electorate, whose support for equal marriage and adoption has been plummeting in repeat opinion polls. People who voted them into government clearly did so for any number of reasons outwith Marriage Equality. The Opposition remain resolutely opposed to LGBT equality, and may well consider they have sufficient popular mandate for repeal if re-elected.
Even if the street demonstrations cease, the battle for equal rights is by no means won, just because there has been a ceasefire. Gay people still have to live in our communities, and that is where things are getting worse in France, and can get worse still. There are so many ways to spoil this victory, ranging from hotels and wedding venues being suddenly “no vacancies”, to violence against person and property as we have been seeing on the rise.
These bigots are marching on viscerality alone, disingenuously obfuscating facts that have been known for decades about same sex parents.
The four leading child psychiatric associations in the USA, including the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Pediatric Association, relying on over 20 years of continuous research, have all determined that there are no adverse consequences for children raised by same sex parents. Their research did however find that children do significantly better with two parents irrespective of gender, than with one, or none.
In the light of these findings, protestors who scream “the children, the children, the children!”, should therefore redirect their efforts to end divorce and single parenthood. The fact that they instead concentrate their venom upon a group that has been proven time and time again to be harmless to children, and arguably better in some circumstances, confirms bigotry in all its ugly manifestations.
@Ester Goldberg: The fourteen countries are:
The Netherlands (2001)
South Africa (2006)
New Zealand (2013)
Also in Mexico same sex marriage is recognized across the entire country if you get married in Mexico City. It makes me sad when a supposed third world country is ahead of the USA in recognizing same sex marriage. Who are the truly backward ones? Me thinks its us.
I always got the notion that France already had gay marriage, since I’ve always seen nothing but positive gay media from there. Nevertheless, congratulations France!! :D ?
on Twitter the hashtag, “homosexuals must be killed” became popular.
This sounds suspiciously like Islamic rhetoric. When I was in Paris several years ago, I was surprised at the large community of North African immigrants, who obviously brought their conservative Muslim cultural views with them. While Christian gay bashing is usually reserved to pickets reading “God Hates Fags” or radio talk shows hosts or conservative politicians spewing fear and hysteria by twisting the facts, Islamic extremism usually manifests in a much more violent response. I may be incorrect in my suspicions. It may be Neo-nazis who are equally as violent and extreme. It just sounds like more than Catholic or Evangelical Christians to me.
@Derek Williams: Interesting analysis. I have heard that the right’s anti-gay rhetoric has actually chipped away at support for marriage equality recently, so your prediction that the opposition could use this as “evidence” that the current government is against the wishes of the people is a very interesting prediction.
@loafersguy: Thank you! Also the following US states have same sex marriage legal:
Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia
Civil Unions are legal in:
Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island.
@MuscleModelBlog.com: It’s started already. The Opposition have declared their intention to appeal against the legislation in the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds.
Vive la France!
France legalizes gay marriage…heads explode around the world. Let’s explode more heads.
HOMOSEXUALS ARE A FRAUD. Don’t believe me? Just ask yourself, am I able to pick one out in a crowd. In a crowd of 100, two should be Homosexuals, would you know which two? You would be good if you could because even Parents could not tell that their Child was Gay. Married couples for years and with Children finally come “out” and tell their spouse that they are Gay. Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon News Casters for years, unknown to all until they come “out” and “claim” that they are gay. NFL retired Player Harris, now comes “out” and “claims” he is Gay. Surprise, surprise, they have to “out” themselves to be known. Doesn’t this tell you that Homosexuality is then, an Unknown? Psychologist will document that Homosexuality exists, but cannot provide valid proof that it is in a particular Person. It is a condition that could be lied about and no method to validate it at any time, especially in Court. There are No known methods to find it, define it or determine that he is one, only his word. In Hawaii, on a Bed and Breakfast case, they “claimed” to be Gay and discriminated against and won their case. They gave no proof to the Court that they were Gay and the Courts never asked for proof, therefore took their “word” for it. So with no proof, they won. Does it make any sense to have a person sue you by telling the Court that they are something but have no proof that they are? Wouldn’t you want the Courts to ask the person suing you to provide proof that they are really Gays. The truth though is that it can never be proven. But, if that is true and that there is no way to prove it, how can Govt. make Laws recognizing it? Protecting it? Providing Rights and Benefits? Well, that is where the Fraud that I mentioned comes in. It seems that slowly by slowly, Homosexuality has worked its way into the fabric of Society, unnoticed by the General public, Govt. and Courts. No proof or verification is necessary for something so acceptable by Society, although detrimental to it. Why bother with proof when the Constitution is not bothered with? Who cares if people can lie and give no proof of who they are and get Millions from the Govt. and Citizens. The Govt. don’t care, the Courts don’t care and the President of the United States don’t care, so why should anyone care? After all, it is only your tax money, why bother? If you were sued for Millions by someone that “claims” to be a Vegetarian, wouldn’t you make them prove to the Court that Vegetables run through their blood and Veins or a documented test that can verify a Person IS a Vegetarian? Just eating Vegetables in not proof. But then, why not ask the same for Homosexuals? That Homosexuality is in their Blood or something? A documented proof. Loving or living with, is not Proof. But as I’ve pointed out, no proof is given and no proof is asked. WHY? Most Judges will ask to see your Papers for proof of what you claim. An expert to verify with test results to satisfy the Court. But again, not for Homosexuality. WHY? Can you imagine Courts with no proof or evidence? Well, wonder no more, Gays give no proof, not asked for proof and frankly cannot provide any proof. But Justice is no where in sight and our survival will be out of sight in the Future. But do remember always, you allowed it to continue and took no stand against it. I’m taking my stand with this comment.
@daniwitz13: Here is your proof:
Note the infallible method used to detect homosexuality, in this university based, peer reviewed research.
Why would anyone claim to be homosexual when they could be heterosexual and get all the benefits and rights that go with that, and not have to continually deal with comments like yours?
Just so you know, I am homosexual. Call me a liar if you like.
@Derek Williams: 58% of France supports gay marriage, while a bare majority (53%) opposes gay adoption. This isn’t exactly totally misreading the electorate, and it certainly can’t properly be characterized as plummeting support. Moreover, an appeal to the Constitutional Council is not seriously expected to prevail, and there is no reason to believe that the parliament will seriously consider repealing the bill for the foreseeable future. It passed by a relatively wide margin, and unless you can plausibly show that there will be a massive turnover in the parliament, it’s just not believable that it can so easily be repealed.
The answer to the violence is not to be silent about demanding your rights or to take them away after they have been justly seized, it’s to use the law to punish those who can’t legally come to terms with those new rights. We’ve been through this before, and I’m not sure what your solution would be – not passing the bill in the first place?
Also, please don’t feed the trolls (daniwitz13). You cannot reason with the unreasonable.
As a biggest HOMO, ion the world I like to give every one of you HOMOS “FROGS” kisses just to let you know how lucky you are!. Who knows? one day maybe the USA with all the fucking Christian we have do the same!?. AdamHomo
@jwrappaport: It’s not “58% of France”, it is 58% (depending on the poll) of those polled. Moreover, going with the most recent Reuters poll I have seen on gay adoption, that dropped below 50% to only 41% in favour. I think you may be reading either from a different poll, or the earlier Reuters one.
I never said said “the answer to violence is to be silent”, and I don’t even think that. I also never said the current parliament could repeal the law, considering it only just passed it. I said I feared that a future parliament comprising the current Opposition benches might repeal it. I based this on the fickleness of the polls, and the fact that they don’t represent what we’re seeing on the streets, where the opponents at 340,000 outnumber those in favour so massively, it’s obvious to me the polls are flawed.
If the present Opposition had remained in power, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, because this law would never have been passed in the first place. A law is no use if it is not complied with and leads to widespread civil disobedience and ridicule, which is already happening now.
As to what solution I propose, I would like dialogue between the adversaries to continue, and for the opponents to exercise their freedom of speech in organised debate to show why they think the way they do, adducing whatever evidence they have. Strangely enough I think the best place of all would be in the Supreme Court, to allow controlled examination of the case. And this is where plaintiffs’ arguments will fall apart. In my long experience as an activist, I have found that as soon as you hand them the microphone, the paucity of their moral imperative causes their case to collapse like a pack of cards. It’s all based on emotion, prejudice and religion.
I clearly recall the notorious Sydney Australia cleric Fred Nile, whose anti-gay activisim caused the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade against which he was campaigning to double in attendance every year, to reach the 1 million it brings on to the streets today. He was a gift to LGBT activism.
If we have confidence in the moral rectitude of our case, we should be willing to debate it in controlled (i.e. not yelling at each other across the street) forums, such as televised debates, and in the court. The anti-gay almost invariably fall back on their religion, and a skilled theologian can soon dispose of that.
The size and vituperativeness of elements of these crowds is not to be ignored. Imagine if it had turned nasty – we could have had Krysallnacht. It only takes a hairtrigger to inflame the mob and 340,000 attacking gay businesses and residences would be unstoppable. A sign of this was the sight of angry, bare-chested young men in masks. Ask yourself how many members of the Ku Klux Klan were ever able to identified.
The way things are now, this is very much a bittersweet victory. I would prefer to see this continue all the way to the Supreme Court, just as the Opposition want, just as happened in Spain, and to see the opponents’ reprehensible case torn to shreds on legal and civil rights grounds. That’s one of the best ways to see all the evidence without it being allowed to become swamped in adversarial rhetoric and shouting each other down and will help secure the legitimacy of our cause in the hearts and minds of the French people.
@jwrappaport: PS, I feed the trolls to let others know about the research. I couldn’t care less whether about them, what I do care about is correcting misinformation. Trolls abound in all sorts of environments like YouTube, and their poison perpetuates fallacies that can harm the vulnerable. Rebutting with facts puts information in their hands too. Of course there’s a limit to how much one can endure.
Anyway, it’s not up to you to dictate whom I should speak to, or not respond to. Didn’t you just say “The answer to the violence is not to be silent”? That applies to ‘verbal violence’ too.
@Derek Williams: Damn Queerty’s lack of Edit feature. Should say “I couldn’t care less about them”.
@Derek Williams: Generally speaking, something like the Constitutional Council of France or other supreme constitutional arbiter doesn’t engage in the kind of fact-finding you’re talking about. That’s done at a court of first instance or trial level court. It could be different in the civil law – I’m from a common law tradition – but I would very surprised if it differs to the extent that they would allow a protracted trial and exposition of factual evidence. Typically, supreme constitutional arbiters deal in questions of law, not fact. The kind of grandstanding trial you’re thinking of, which is to say one in which extensive and detailed arguments could be made on both sides, is not typically characteristic of constitutional litigation. Again, this is a very American/common law perspective, but I doubt the French/civil law model would be amenable to this. I’d need to do some research.
Further, to say that the arbiter of gay rights should be a court and not a legislative body is a very strange proposition when the legislature votes to extend those rights. Not that I disagree that the role of the judiciary should be to ensure the equal application and protection of the law to vulnerable minorities for whom the legislative process is an insufficient safeguard, it is very rarely the role of the judiciary to intervene when the people have spoken. The essence of legitimacy in any democracy is the will of the people. That will has been expressed here given that the parliament is the voice of the people at a national level, and there is no reason to thwart that will or subject it to judicial interference. To justifiably trigger judicial interference with the legislature, there must be a showing that the legislature acted beyond its powers. I don’t see how that can be plausibly argued here.
Regarding your comment on the trolls: fair enough.
I have my suspicions about who our illustrious troll is. I believe it’s a close associate of David Mabus, a notorious troll who threatened to kill me more than once. But like his right wing friends lacks the bottle, ability or intelligence to pull it off.
Thanks for emphasising that it’s legalised same-sex marriage, not Marriage Equality as so many other sites have reported.
It’s a great step forward, and not before time. Everyone should rejoice.
One issue – in order to pass this law, it was deemed necessary to retain France’s existing ban on Intersex people getting married.
The law was very carefully, and deliberately, worded to prevent it. It’s not certain whether Trans people are allowed to marry, but it appears they probably are. We think. French courts may not agree, based on past decisions.
It would have been simpler to say “Marriage is contracted by two persons”
Instead, it says:
“Art. 143. – Marriage is contracted by two persons of opposite sex or the same sex. ”
Intersex people are still excluded, as they are in a number of jurisdictions. So “marriage equality” it’s not. Not yet – might take awhile though. In the meantime rejoice!
@Nikkidane: Yeah, let’s blame it on Muslims.
I hate it when people direct blame for “the other” group.
Christians, whether they be Catholic, evangelic, or whatever, have PLENTY of extremists among their ranks.
No.4 · Derek Williams
A sober commentary.
No. 8 · Nikkidane
No. 13 · Ron Jackson
Cute and funny too — “…….Let’s explode more heads.”
Great comments throughout…..
My favorite cause I feel like saying this also —
No. 12 · Kieran
Vive la France!
……there needs to be something said here–it’s about time the French (especially the French) actually granted same sex marriage…I mean honestly, they’re very good at fashion and food etc…but being honest?
The new French marriage law however will not grant automatic co-parenting rights for same-sex couples in civil partnerships or PACs as they are called in France and available to straights and gays alike, nor allow access to medically assisted procreation or IVF to married lesbian couples, unlike in the UK where this is available on the National Health to lesbian couples without equal marriage. It’s not really full equal marriage equality just yet until that part of the law is changed at a later date hopefully.
Need an account? Register It's free and easy.
Patsy And Edina's 15 Lessons To An "Absolutely Fabulous" Life
The Queerty Guide To Wholly Inappropriate Swimsuits
PHOTOS: Gay Classic "Querelle" Gets Fashion Makeover
Trim Sam Smith New Face Of Balenciaga
Fisher-Price Campaign Shows Beauty And Diversity Of LGBT Families