Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Article from Louis-Georges Barret, Vice President of French Christian Democrat Party

This piece came out in the Christian Democrat Party's site in France:

http://lepcd.fr/mariage-pour-tous-la-loi-proposee-atteint-un-principe-fondamental-des-lois-de-la-republique/

I have placed the English translations below. h/t Pierre Tardy

Marriage for all: The proposed Law hits upon a fundamental principle of the Republic's laws
January 9, 2013, Party of Democratic Christians

Louis-Georges Barret, Vice President of the PCD, turns to the problems that would be caused by the passage of the bill on "marriage for all, with regard to our constitution.

The bill for the civil Code adopted by the August 22, 1793 convention defined marriage as an accord by which man and woman engaged under the authority of the law to live together and raise and feed the children born of their union.

Matters are therefore clear: French civil marriage, the institution of civil marriage, is, well, an agreement between two people of different sexes placed into effect to protect children to be born later. This principle is a fundamental one of the Republic's laws and must be recognized as such.

In this light, the bill of today is against our founding principles and demands a constitutional modification. The Constitutional Council has not, furthermore, said any different in sending back to the legislature the choice to vote on a law without saying according to which majority.

This majority is inevitably that of the 3/5 of Parliament. But male/female marriage defined as it is is not discriminatory. the European Court of rights of man and the founding liberties, have clearly indicated that the definition of marriage between a man and woman is not discriminatory.

It is this law, today proposed by the government, which creates a discrimination among children, between those who will have the right to have a father and mother, and those who will only have the right to have undefined parents.

It is this law, today proposed, which in throwing into contention biological parentage, comes to negate all the progress made by jurisprudence since 1912, which allowed children to find their natural parents.

The govenment maintains that it would be acting in progress, but all evolution cannot under the sole pretext of its novelty be classified as progress. All new situations made do not have the business of being erected as a model for law. The law has a structuring task for society and for the people who make it up.

In reality the bill that will be submitted to Parliament in January is an overturning without precedent of family law. It would overturn our Civil code. It changes the notion of parenting and will change, by consequence, protection devoted to children.

It is the law of parenthood that is in this way profoundly undermined and placed into doubt. How can one truly explain to children that they come from a father and mother, naturally speaking, but that someone has decided that they ought to be denied and replaced by a fictive parent to whom the law alone will have given standing?

How will the family judges be able to truly litigate the complainants tied to the residence of a child among its adoptive and natural parents, especially when separations have intervened?

How does one maintain in the eyes of the child a coherence so that it knows its origins and where its roots lie? What will one make of the presumption of paternity that this text will cause to vanish?

Until the present time, children born of a marriage or during a marriage do not need to be recognized either by father or mother; the simple declaration in city hall in a brief delay will be sufficient to establish its lineage. Now, without creating discrimination among children we must well consider that the presumption of fatherhood will be gone.

The government is moreover very aware of this since in its impact study, it recognized that the difficulties of this order would emerge inevitably. Yet it does not wrestle with all the consequences of these difficulties.

On April 6, 1903, The Court of (Nullification?) judged: "marriage can only be legally contracted between two people, one being male and the other female."

The question of same-sex marriage has, in French law, some undeniable incidences about parenthood/lineage, which will have as an obvious consequence, a discriminatory effect among children.

This discrimination is against all the international obligations of France, it makes it necessary to call to our MPs, our jurists, our judges, so that such discrimination never exists in our internal law to the extent that it would be, quite surely , the basis on which to condemn France as a nation. More than all of that, let us turn our eyes to children and recognize a faith for all that the right of the child is imperative, and higher than other matters and must never and will never be overridden to the right TO a child.

The juridical fight has only begun. A national debate is necessary because all society risks a major upheaval in this.

Signed Louis-George BARRET