Romney’s campaign slogan First, Not France was already a head-scratcher. What a tired out old lampoon. Even the Congressonal chow hall has taken to calling their greasy potato sticks French Fries again. But I suppose if he’s running against his own home state of MA, there is a certain consistency in his running against the country he spent 2 years evangelizing. Maybe he failed that mission miserably and is bitter? That fits his MA profile too. hmmm…
But what happens when Willard’s pet BOGEYMAN turns out to be better at barring gays from equal rights than Willard hisself? According to MA Family Institute (bastion of bashing, but informative emails!) France: High court rules in favor of traditional marriage
Last week, France’s highest court upheld the decision of a lower court and rejected the “marriage” of two homosexual men that had taken place in 2004. The court declared the marriage annulled, finding that “under French law, marriage is a union between a man and a woman.” Stephane Charpin and Bertrand Charpentier were “married” in a ceremony on June 5, 2004, in Begles, a town in the southwest Bordeaux region. The government immediately said the union was outside the law, and a series of court decisions upheld that government’s view. The latest court ruling explained that only a “new law by parliament” could change the situation. In other words, legislators, not judges, can change the definition of marriage.
And it was a court decision. Can’t bash France any more! Can’t cry ACTIVIST JUDGES any more! What is Weasely Willard to do?!! Any new slogan suggestions for our hollow hero?
I think the anti-French thing was because they were anti-war, right? But so was the Pope, so is he also saying “first, not Catholic?” I don’t think the anti-France sentiment was ever about gay issues, though maybe lots of yahoos need to think the French are all gay, and the Limbaughs and Hannitys played to that as a useful joke when France refused to join the coalition. So if Romney is hoping for the neocon/simpleton vote, that’s a good slogan.
<
p>
But those of us watching the ethical and moral issues have been real happy with France for a long time. Here’s a 2004 Wesley Smith column (in NRO?) about how France has a great cloning law. And yes, they are very heterosexual, perhaps those jokes got to them after a while.
to Wesley Smith’s 2004 “Clone The French” column.
<
p>
(Don’t look at any of the ads or click any links)
<
p>
…”registered partnership” law (as does Germany) that extends to same-sex couples–as well, oddly enough–to opposite sex couples. It’s not marriage, but it is close.
<
p>
And it is probably the first step on the road to legislative approval of same-sex marriage. That’s what happened in the Netherlands. The Dutch finally figured out–why have two tracks that are almost the same? It will happen eventually in France, too, and probably in short order.
One track would be for couples that have the right to conceive children together, and one track for couples that are prohibited from conceiving children together. Except for that important difference, I can’t see any reason for two tracks. And that’s assuming that France’s anti-cloning law prohibits attempts at non egg and sperm conception, not just somatic cell nuclear transfer. Or, the idea that people should only have a right to conceive with someone of the other sex could still be just a nebulous idea there also.
Laurel, I will say why I think the concept is a problem, then try to offer a solution that hasn’t occurred to either of the “fat-guy” talk show hosts. Please be patient with me while I do this, as I know others will also read what I write, and they’re not all as bright as you. đŸ™‚
<
p>
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion . . .” As you are probably aware, I’m pretty much a conservative Christian. In point of fact, I am a Ruling Elder (sort of a combined judge and legislator) in the Presbyterian Church in America, which is frankly one of the more conservative Protestant churches out there.
<
p>
To those outside the faith, it is pretty easy to dismiss the whole concept as ignorant superstition. As the Apostle Paul stated, “If Christ is not risen from the dead, our preaching is useless, and so is your faith.” (1Cor.15:14) Thus, we must be rather sure of that fact, else why do we cling to that to which we cling?
<
p>
In any event, I’m not here to proselytize, but to share an opinion.
<
p>
All that aside, there are several sacraments to the Christian Church in general, that are our most sacred. These include Baptism, the Eucharist (The Lord’s Supper), Marriage, and Christian Burial. Now both Testaments unequivocally state in numerous places that marriage is between a man and a woman, and the scriptures (particularly the letters of Paul) rail against same-sex intercourse of any sexual kind.
<
p>
This is why I opened with the First Amendment quote, above. Judeo-Christian America, believes, regardless of the degree to which the government has meddled in, regulated, taxed, and written its own laws about marriage, that infringement by the government upon the “letter of the law,” or in this case, the letter of OUR law, is an infringement upon not just our sacraments, but of that peculiarity of the First Amendment. Further, I know of no other religion practiced in these United States that endorses same-sex unions as ‘marriage.’ Where that HAS happened, as in some of the Anglican churches, the proponents can find no biblical or scriptural basis for same.
<
p>
But this is not to say that a door should be slammed shut in the face of those who do not accept this. I have seen elsewhere, and will heartily advocate for, the CONCEPT of a “registered same-sex union,” that stops short of declaring itself a ‘marriage.’ I emphasized ‘concept,’ because the idea is totally foreign to me, and while I have no right (nor will I usurp one!) to judge others, the only line I will draw in the sand is around those things sacred to the Church.
<
p>
Under this concept, I envision that same-sex couples would be treated with all due dignity and respect by the government, in the same way that married hetero couples are treated. I would also envision that such couples would be expected to follow the same rules as married couples, both moral and legal. Finally, I would endorse their right to all the legal paraphernalia and trappings of such a civil union, save that of adopting children (A subject for another time, I think.)
<
p>
Christ, in His Wisdom, admonished us to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” I think He was speaking about a LOT more than just paying taxes. But in this case, I think we in these United States need to follow not just the equivocated letter, but the unequivocated INTENT, or our law.
<
p>
And to all, I have tried to handle this with sensitivity. Please do the same in your responses.
<
p>
Best,
Chuck