|The Dreyfus Affair was one guy.|
This is about tens of thousands of children.
It's a big deal.
Forget Les Miserables, Barjot's speech was pure Zola.
I finally get to start an article by saying “in my expert opinion.” Hooray!
In my expert opinion as someone who’s studied way too much about the history of rhetoric, I conclude that the closing speech at the Paris “march for all” against gay marriage, on January 13, was one of the most important speeches of our age.
I say this because the crisp, succinct, five-minute epistle from bleached-blonde Frigide Barjot to President François Hollande dismantled point-by-point the entire ideology behind fighting for gay marriage. A crowd now certified as containing one million people cheered her on. French-American marriage activist Pierre Tardy called her “the Joan of Arc” of our time.
Much attention in France has been paid to the logistical miracle of the “march for all,” especially Barjot’s shrewd cultural positioning and exploitation of social media, combined with rigorous discipline by all parties involved in raising money.
Here’s the thing, though. All the shrewd planning and fabulous public relations in the world would have come to nothing without the speech. The speech she gave along with her buddies on the sound stage in the Champ de Mars was the crescendo of the movement, with a million supporters congregated in bottlenecked streets spanning outward from the Eiffel Tower.
Without the speech, people could have truly dismissed the whole affair as a glorified astro-turfed rock concert and blown off the march’s philosophical riposte to gay marriage. Because of the powerful points conveyed in her speech, however, people cannot dismiss her challenge. Her points had that rare, often elusive thing called precision. In other words, she was right.
What are the strong points stated by those who fight for gay marriage? They say it is about freedom, love, happiness, and equality.
They like to compare their struggle to past struggles such as black people overcoming slavery. Adolescence appears often in such pro-gay rhetoric in the form of the bullied teenage martyr. The tortured and beaten-down gay teen is such a useful casus belli for the purposes of advancing the gay lobby’s demands that gay Democrats remain staunchly opposed to the school voucher programs that could get many bullied gays to safer schools.
In the United States, such vagaries allow proponents of gay marriage to gloss over enormous hypocrisies in their arguments.
For instance, they cite the Fourteenth Amendment in the same breath as saying their sexual behavior is innate because of their biology (i.e., “I can’t change; it’s not my choice.”)
Blacks spent centuries oppressed by “stereotypes,” most of which depended on the belief that African biology drove incurable behaviors such as stupidity, sexual rapacity, and criminality, which could be predicted by looking at an inborn trait like skin color. The Fourteenth Amendment had to be instituted to protect blacks from a legal system that had grown out of such stereotypical logic, yet gay activists who cite the Fourteenth Amendment claim it should guarantee them gay marriage because their biology dictates their behavior.
In other words, gays appeal through stereotypical assumptions to the Fourteenth Amendment which had to be passed because such essentialist thinking had nearly destroyed entire races of people on the American continent.
As Dan Savage likes to say, it gets better. Same-sex matrimony, we hear, is necessary to protect under-aged children who have landed in the homes of same-sex couples.
With so much talk in France of "securiser" the children of same-sex couples, you could almost forget to ask, "wait, why are the kids in same-sex homes?" You might assume that same-sex couples blossomed in a briar patch somewhere because of changes to the ecosystem.
Actually, in just about every case of a kid living with a same-sex couple, the same-sex couple arranged for them to be there; by divorcing previous heterosexual partners, buying sperm, or renting women’s wombs. All turmoil produced by these controversial and doubtlessly traumatizing means for a child to be situated are blamed on the public's priggish resistance to social progress, rather than on the basic fact that any such kid is bound to realize that his two “parents” were somewhat clouded in their judgment when they deemed this whole familial apparatus a reasonable idea.
Recall the age-old definition of chutzpah: killing your parents and then begging the jury for mercy because you are an orphan.
English-speaking nations have yet to call out the gay marriage agenda for its multiple foundational problems. Some have raised these issues, but the charge of “homophobe” is quick to silence them. In France, gay marriage partisans have tried these tactics, but things have worked differently.
One million people taking to the Paris streets is the equivalent of five million people taking to the streets in Washington to fight eloquently against gay marriage, not on the grounds that homosexuality is a sin, but rather on the grounds that male sperm donors, female womb-renters, divorced moms and dads, and kids thrown into same-sex couples without sensible contact with a parent of one gender are all parties whose “rights,” “equality,” “love,” “happiness,” and “acceptance,” are trampled by the very vehicle – gay marriage – which is supposed to guarantee these things for gay people.
France had the advantage of possessing brilliant gay men like the young and photogenic Xavier Bongibault, who somehow found the courage to say things that not even the most shameless right-wing gays could say aloud in the United States: “the LGBT movement is homophobic because it says that homosexuals can only reflect politically within their sexual instincts.” Why didn’t I think of that line twenty years ago when I was Xavier’s age, and already finding fellow LGBTs annoying? In the speech on the Paris soundstage, Bongibault declares:
You, President of the Republic, must not turn a deaf ear to the words of all the homosexuals who wish to contribute to the common good without having our will dictated to us by either our own sexual preferences, or by high-pressure ultra-minoritarian interest groups.
When I heard the lines above in the manifesto speech, I had to call Doug Mainwaring on the phone and say, “if I weren’t happily married, I’d be swooning. What a brilliant young man.”
The purveyors of sexual radicalization have actually deprived biological fathers and biological mothers of their rights to the human fruit of their sexual and emotional labor. Certainly the socialist in the French parliament who was caught on tape saying, "renting your uterus to make a child, renting your arms to a factory -- what's the difference?" should give anybody with a brain pause.
And then, of course, there is the child. Perhaps it is perfectly harmless for a child to spend grammar school and high school years living with two moms or two dads. (I appeared perfectly okay for most of my youth living with a lesbian mom.) But the ramifications of this gerrymandered lineage will have a long effect on the person well after childhood. As the child of a same-sex couple plods through later decades, inequalities will start to develop between him and peers who have more typical family trees, ergo more typical and possibly stable networks of support and self-identification. Perhaps things will be great, maybe they won't, but there is clearly a risk being played with the lives of people, and decisions about their entire life trajectory being made unnecessarily, when they are too young to have any power. That is what many in France mean by the violation of a child's rights by the basic claims of gay marriage.
Below is an excerpt of the speech, which I’ve translated at the hyperlink here:
[M]arriage for all is a juridical denial of the most elementary reality of humanity, constituted as it is "man and woman", the only union naturally capable of siring new life. You, President of the Republic -- Will you be the one to float a travesty--that a human being can be born of two men or of two women? "Marriage for all" inscribes fundamental discrimination into our law among children, an inequality between children who will be born of a mother and a father, and children who will be born of two fathers, and children who will be born of two mothers. You, President of the Republic -- Will you be the one to abolish the basic equality of birth among children?The marriage for all is also, finally, the reduction of men to nothing more than anonymous sources of sperm, and the subjugation of women pressured to rent out their wombs.
Why has it taken so long for anyone to make the point that this scandalous, uncoiffed woman from Lyon and her ragtag cronies managed to make in four short paragraphs?
In the media-saturated and Obamafied condition of the postmodern world, it is extremely difficult to write an impactful speech, let alone a groundbreaking one. The speech that I’ve decided to dub “The March for All Manifesto” fits the bill and belongs in the same arc as Demosthenes, Luther, Jefferson, Zola. Sometimes historically significant events do not feel that important when they are happening. This rhetorical masterpiece, simple but precise, may one day prove far more significant than it may have seemed when it happened.
Robert Oscar Lopez’s fiction page is here