Robert Oscar Lopez reports that in the face of mass protests, French support for gay marriage is weakening:
If the thunderous calls for a referendum are honored by Hollande, it is not at all clear that his “marriage for all” push will have clear sailing. The “march for all” movement spearheaded by Barjot, Bongibault, and Tcheng has flipped public opinion. In June 2011, according to this aggregate of polls, 63 percent of French citizens favored same-sex marriage and 58 percent thought it would be fine for gay couples to adopt children.
After the marches, vigorous debates, and probing coverage in the press, the public is wavering. As of January 11, 2013, 54 percent oppose gay adoption. In addition, 53 percent oppose “medically assisted procreation” such as surrogacy and insemination, while the number favoring same-sex marriage, still high at 60 percent, has declined slightly. Many predict that a true national debate, which protesters allege has not been allowed yet, will awaken many citizens to the counter-arguments against redefining marriage, and push the number even lower.
Lopez has started a useful blog translating into English texts relevant to the French debate.
January 14th, 2013 | 4:14 pm
I am wondering if the title shouldn’t be “Support for Gay Adoption Slips in French Debate,” since it is difficult to know if the two poll figures of 63% (June 2011) and 60% (January 2013) don’t both have a margin of error that renders the 3 point difference insignificant. But the figures about gay adoption seem far enough apart to be significant.
Michael PS will no doubt want to correct me, but it seems that the debate in France is probably much more focused on children than in the United States because France already has “marriage lite” (PACS) for both gays and heterosexuals. I am not convinced that there would be such a push for same-sex marriage in the United States if we had something equivalent to PACS. In the United States, there has been so much resistance to same-sex marriage and civil unions (18 states constitutionally ban both) that it only makes sense to go right for same-sex marriage and forget about civil unions.
January 15th, 2013 | 3:01 am
In the post above, you claim to link to a supposed aggregate of polls, but the link does not take the reader to any such aggregate poll data. The link is not to a poll, but to a blog. The blog discusses an individual June 2011 poll, not an aggregate of polls.
If you have a link to aggregated polling data, please provide it. Otherwise, you should correct the post.
January 15th, 2013 | 4:19 am
David Nickol
The figures on the PACS are rather interesting.
In 1999, before its introduction, there were roughly 300,000 marriages in Metropolitan France. In 2010 (the last year for which figures are available) there were 250,000 marriages and 200,000 PACSs, only some 7% of which were between same-sex couples.
I believe it is certainly true that, in France, the debate on SSM has been much more focused on children, adoption and assisted reproduction.
On the issue of surrogate gestation, this is already illegal in France. The plenary Court of Cassation held that it conflicts with Art 1128 of the Code Civil, “Only things in trade may be the subject of an contract” [« Il n'y a que les choses qui sont dans le commerce qui puissent être l'objet des conventions. »] and Art 16-7 declares, “All agreements relating to procreation or gestation on account of a third party are void.” Jurisprudence, too, has settled that “the mother is the one who bears the child and gives it life by bringing it into the world.” (Court of Appeal Rennes July 4 2002) and that it is an abuse of the adoption process for a French couple to adopt a child born to a foreign surrogate. The Parquet has taken action in two cases involving Californian surrogates, where, according to the Procurator of the Republic, “children can be easily purchased, bespoke or prêt-à-porter.”
January 15th, 2013 | 4:30 am
An attempt to impose SSM through the courts on equality grounds in the famous Bègles case failed miserably, rejected by the Tribunal of First Instance, the Court of Appeal in Bordeaux, the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Council.
The latter ruled [Décision n° 2010-92 QPC du 28 janvier 2011], “Considering, on the other hand, that Article 6 of the Declaration of 1789 provides that the law “must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes”; that the principle of equality does not prevent the legislator from settling different situations in different ways, or from derogating from equality for the general interest, provided that in both cases the difference in treatment that results is either in direct relationship with the subject of the law established thereby; that by maintaining the principle according to which marriage is the union of a man and a woman, the legislator has, in exercising its competence under Article 34 of the Constitution [power to legislate], deemed that the difference of situation between couples of the same sex and those composed of a man and a woman can justify a difference in treatment with regard to the rules regarding the right to a family; that it is not for the Constitutional Council to substitute its judgment for that of the legislator regarding the consideration of this difference of situation…”
January 15th, 2013 | 8:24 am
The events in France indicate that there is a growing concern in regard to the psychological harm that would be done to children by redefining marriage and thereby deliberately depriving them of a father or a mother.
January 15th, 2013 | 10:51 pm
In 2010 (the last year for which figures are available) there were 250,000 marriages and 200,000 PACSs, only some 7% of which were between same-sex couples.
Only 7%? That is strange since we have been told homosexuals are nowhere near 10% of the population (which was Kinsley’s estimate many decades ago) and were more likely between 1-4%. Combining marriages with PACS we get 3.1% of such unions are same-sex. If gays make up 4% of the population that would mean they have a marriage or ‘civil union’ rate of nearly 75%! You can lower that by assuming a higher ratio of gays in the population, but I doubt most will go anywhere near the 10% figure.
This seems pretty significant given that we have been told few if any gays would really take advantage of SSM if offered, they are all dedicated only to unchecked hedonism.
It also seems pretty problematic to the “marriage is for procreation only” crowd. If that’s so why would so many who aren’t procreating seek something like it?
The events in France indicate that there is a growing concern in regard to the psychological harm that would be done to children by redefining marriage…
This doesn’t seem coherent. Since French law is quite unfriendly to surrogacy there would be less reason to think that SSM would result in any serious increase in gay households raising kids.
January 15th, 2013 | 10:58 pm
In fact, if you were a social planner with an agenda to make as many children as possible be raised by same sex couples, SSM would be the exact opposite of what you’d do. The best way to get SSP (same sex parenting) is to encourage gay people to marry people of the opposite gender. By the time such unstable marriages break up, many will have kids which greatly increases the odds that more kids will end up with the gay parent and partner.
If gays skip the traditional marriage part and go right to SSM, the only way to get kids are:
1. Surrogacy – which even in more friendly legal environments is expensive and fought with risks.
2. IVF – Only applicable to women.
3. Adoption – only applicable when, by definition, the traditional mother and father have somehow failed the child they created.
January 16th, 2013 | 9:45 am
Booton
The fact that some 7% of PACSs are between same-sex couples tells one nothing about the proportion of homosexuals in the population. The figures tell us nothing about unregulated cohabitation or people living alone.
Also, currently, opposite-sex couples have three choices, marriage, a PACS or unregulated cohabitation, whereas same-sex couples are confined to the latter two.
January 16th, 2013 | 10:54 am
Michael PS
On the contrary. You asserted 200K couples were married, 250K couples joined via PACS for a base of 450K.
If some feature had nothing to do with propensity to marry or PAC, then you’d expect the ratio to be pretty close to the population. For example, if 35% of the population is left-handed, I’d expect to see about 35% in the married/PAC subset be left handed. If you told me 65% of those getting married/PAC’ed were left handed, then I’d have to say France has more left handed people than I thought or for some reason left handed people are really into getting married.
If gays are 4% of the population but 7% of the PAC’d or even 3% of the married/PAC’d group (since SSM isn’t an option for gays in France) then either gays are a larger portion of the population than we’ve been told by many on one side of this debate OR gays are much more inclined towards getting as close to legal marriage as they can than straights. In the US we’ve had cases where SSM surges after first being enacted and then falls due to a ‘backlog’ of cases but I think PACs have been open to same sex couples for a while now in France so that can’t account for it.
January 16th, 2013 | 11:31 am
Booton
No, 250K marriages and 200K PACSs.
The PACS was introduced in 2000.
Another explanation, of course, would be that (some) homosexuals get pacsed more frequently.
January 16th, 2013 | 12:48 pm
Perhaps you could advise on how easy it is to ‘divorce’ a PAC versus a marriage? If gays found PACs unfullfilling then no doubt some would PAC again and again but others would simply learn the lesson and avoid PACing all together just as there’s some people who rack up lots of divorces but many either ‘get marriage right’ the 2nd or 3rd time around or just stop trying.
Also are PACs exclusive? Can 3 people PAC? Can already PACed people PAC with others?
January 16th, 2013 | 3:40 pm
Even if you include same-sex cohabitation, assuming a sexual component, this is a marginal practice within the adult homosexual population. it is also an unstable practice.
That 7% is 7% of those who formed a PAC. It is less than 1% of the adult homosexual population.
The participation in marriage — the union of husband and wife — has declined severely in France. The rest of the population has dropped standards and marriage has become more and more unusual — as the best alternative to cohabitation or singledom. In other words, the rest of the population — in terms of sexual practices and domestic living arrangements — are becoming more and more like those of the adult homosexual population. Not the other way around. Where these practices intersect will depend on the decline, not the revigoration, of the marriage culture in France.
The birthright of each human being is to know and to be known by her mother and her father (barring dire circumstances or tragedy). The flipside of that coin is that each of us, as part of a procreative duo, is responsible to each other and for our offspring. Marriage is, at its core, orientated to integration of the sexes and provision for responsible procreation. It is orientated to procreative justice via a foundational social institution of civil society. Government can become indifferent to this, sure, or it can become very supportive of this, sure, but the goal of the SSM campaign is to set Government against the core meaning of marriage.
That hostility, that animus, cannot be justified by the gay emphasis of those who promote the SSM idea. That idea, shorn of the gay emphasis, is merely a call for protections for nonmarital scenarios.
But marital status is a preferential status. The imposition of SSM would demote the marriage idea to a barely tolerative status — it would be deemed hateful and intolerant and…
January 16th, 2013 | 8:18 pm
It’s better for children to have married parents. The research on this is well documented. Therefore, it makes no sense to deny the right to have married parents to children being raised by gay couples. Even if you don’t like or don’t approve of gay people, you surely wouldn’t want to harm children, would you?
We should rejoice when any parenting couple wants to marry. Marriage creates a stable safe space for the couple and the children they are raising. I can’t imagine putting the children of same-sex couples at a decided disadvantage in the world by denying them access to married parents.
January 17th, 2013 | 4:46 am
Booton
A PACS can be dissolved by mutual agreement, by three months notice by one party or by the marriage of one party.
A PACS is limited to two people and an existing PACS is a bar to a second.
A marriage can only be annulled or dissolved by a judicial decree.
Chairm
In France, 85% of children under 15 are living with both parents.
January 17th, 2013 | 7:30 am
Robert, SSM cannot do what adoption can do directly. Adoption does not bestow marital status. Meanwhile marital status is a legitimate basis for prioritizing prospective adopters. There are more married people who have expressed interest in adotpion than there are children available for adoption in the fostercare system. SSM is not the solution.
Of the adult homosexual population, less than 10% resides in same-sex households and less than3% reside in such households with children. In other words, 97% of the adult homosexual population does not reside with children in same-sex households. Childraising is a marginal practice within the homosexual population.
Of the tiny portion of the adult homosexual population in such households with children, the vast majority already have both moms and dads. Less than 5% of children in these households were attained via adoption. The adult homosexual population is not the solution to children in need of stable parent duos.
Those who’d choose SSM do not choose marriage. They disadvantage children they attain. Stop blaming society for their poor choices.
January 17th, 2013 | 7:40 am
Typo correction: Of the tiny portion of children residing with members of the adult homosexual population in such households, the vast majority already have both moms and dads.
I’d add that only a tiny fraction of 1% of the adult homosexual population resides in same-sex households with adopted children.
Some perspective is called for.
January 17th, 2013 | 7:53 am
Chairm
That 7% is 7% of those who formed a PAC. It is less than 1% of the adult homosexual population.
Yes but that wouldn’t matter. If 35% of the entire population is left-handed, but 65% of those getting married are left-handed, it doesn’t matter that those getting married in any one year is a tiny portion of the overall population. One would expect to see about 35% of those getting married being lefties.
Unless lefties were excpetionally keen on getting married or righties were exceptionally keen on NOT getting married or both.
Of course France doesn’t have SSM so some gays who would marry opt for PACs so I added together PACs and Marriages and then the figure drops to 3%. For heterosexuals that’s about what one would excpect….if 95-96% of the population is not gay then you’d expect to see 95-96% of unions being not-gay. so that eliminates your theory of straights being exceptionally not into marriage. On the other hand MichaelPS has a point about total populations. You can’t take 3% of unions being same sex and assume given a 4% gay population you therefore have a 75% marriage/union rate.
The birthright of each human being is to know and to be known by her mother and her father (barring dire circumstances or tragedy).
Then you should support SSM as I pointed out the best way to get same sex parenting is to NOT have SSM.
January 17th, 2013 | 8:02 am
If there was no difference between straight parents and gay parents, you’d have a point.
January 18th, 2013 | 2:12 pm
Boonton,
That is 1% of the adult homosexual population, not general population. PACs is a marginal practice within the target group. Likewise same-sex householding in general.
Participation in marriage has declined in France. The statistics on PACs clearly shows that much. But until this past decade or so, most people married and most married women had children. This is the inverse of SSM (under whatever guise).
Y point is that for participation rates to become closer is to see the marital trends decline even further. The SSM trend is iminscule within the target population and trends as marginal henceforth. F these two trends intersect it will not be due to a big rise in the SSM rate but due to a deeer decline in the marital rate.
Think of it as a sort of reverse assimilation whereby (to use the pro-SSM jargon) straight population becomes more like gay population. Not the other way around.
January 26th, 2013 | 10:36 pm
Boonton,
Why do you refer to it as same-sex parenting? When a mother parents her daughter is this not same-sex parenting?
You appear to mean parenting by persons engaged in same-sex sexual behavior. Right?
Tell me, what is the significance of that sexual behavior on the parenting of children, do you think?
There are many millions more same-sex parenting scenarios that are not sexualized, that are not gay, but which are not eligible to marry. Yet that ineligibility has not diminished the nonmarital trends.
The very low participation rates for same-sex householding (census term that assumes the householder and another adult of the same sex are in a sexualized relationship) within the adult homosexual population shows, if nothing else, that participation rates in such householding with children is a very marginal practice within the adult homosexual population.
But we are told, by SSMers, that this marginal practice of gay “same-sex parenting” justifies imposition of the SSM idea on all of society. Why? Because it would encourage more of the homosexual population to attain children. How? By somehow increasing the stability of gay coupledom across the board. Why? Because it is unstable today and not a reliable pool for adoptors — for instance.
I think your goofy thinking ends-up splaying itself on this one.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact