Before the second reading debate, in the House of Commons tomorrow, of the government's Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, I hope that libertarians on the right and left of British politics will watch or read Bruno Nestor Azerot's recent moving speech in the French National Assembly. Bruno Nestor Azerot was elected to the French National Assembly on June 17, 2012 representing the department of Martinique. Here is an English summary of what he says:
I have supported all the bills advocated by the left until now.
Gay marriage is a dishonest concept because homosexuality is a matter belonging to the private sphere. Homosexuals need rights of legal protection, but marriage is a public institution.
This bill seeks to create a new norm for the institution of the family, which would change the fundamental rules on marriage, inheritance, consanguinity.
Society has given a legal framework to a natural gift: the union of a man and woman.
It is not the law that denies homosexuals the right to have children: it is nature.
Formerly, the purpose of marriage was regarded as procreation. Now marriage is regarded as a concept of sentiment.
Hedonistic individualism threatens to overthrow the personalist and socialist doctrine on which our whole society, underpinned by the values of solidarity, liberty, equality,has been based.
The family is the pivot of society. If this bill is passed, the family is liable to explode.
The “new equality” would create confusion between genders and upset the values on which our society is based.
Our responsibility to history is great.
The “new equality” would weaken the foundation of the society constructed after the abolition of slavery.
[At this point, the speaker becomes emotional, on one occasion thumping the podium with both hands.]
I am the descendant of an oppressed people. Slaves were denied the right to have children. Marriage was forbidden.
The “new equality” would be a denial of reality, establish a new oppression. The confusion of genders would undo the emancipation of women and lead to their oppression.
It would be forbidden to differentiate between men and women, at the risk of being accused of discrimination.
I affirm the right to marriage between the different, not the similar.
Rather than taking action to solve the problems of housing, youth unemployment, etc, we are instead directing our energies to the promotion of “gay marriage”.
Comments on this blog? Email them to email@example.com
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy