Mais oui! French homosexuals joined pro-family leaders and activists in the campaign for traditional marriage..

It shouldn't surprise anyone.

Although when I told my neighbor I was against gay marriage/gay adoption, she was surprised.  Talk about prejudiced.  Nevertheless, in this country as well as France, there are many who have no interest in same sex marriage and see traditional marriage specifically as a place to raise and nurture children.  Perhaps it is just the 'ssa' baby boomers who value such old fashioned notions - that horrid generation everyone wants to die off may not be so bad after all.  Printed here is evidence from the French - which echo my own opinion and statements on the matter - something I've not been shy about saying either:  Gay marriage - I'm against it.

“The rights of children trump the right to children,” was the catchphrase of protesters like Jean Marc, a French mayor who is also homosexual.

NEW YORK, January 18 (C-FAM) Perhaps as many as a million people marched in Paris last Sunday and at French embassies around the world against proposed legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage in France. One of the surprises in the French campaign for traditional marriage is that homosexuals have joined pro-family leaders and activists in the effort.

Xavier Bongibault, an atheist homosexual, is a prominent spokesman against the bill. “In France, marriage is not designed to protect the love between two people. French marriage is specifically designed to provide children with families,” he said in an interview. “[T]he most serious study done so far . . . demonstrates quite clearly that a child has trouble being raised by gay parents.”

Jean Marc, who has lived with a man for 20 years, insists, “The LGBT movement that speaks out in the media . . . They don’t speak for me. As a society we should not be encouraging this. It’s not biologically natural.”

Outraged by the bill, 66-year old Jean-Dominique Bunel, a specialist in humanitarian law who has done relief work in war-torn areas, told Le Figaro he “was raised by two women” and that he “suffered from the lack of a father, a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I was aware of it at a very early age. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation."

"As soon as I learned that the government was going to officialize marriage between two people of the same sex, I was thrown into disarray,” he explained. It would be “institutionalizing a situation that had scarred me considerably. In that there is an injustice that I can in no way allow." If the women who raised him had been married, “I would have jumped into the fray and would have brought a complaint before the French state and before the European Court of Human Rights, for the violation of my right to a mom and a dad." - Source

 

Remember to love your enemies good Christian folk.  :) 

I don't know who George Neumayr is.

Although now I know what he said about Cardinal Wuerl.  Please use the sharing buttons! Thanks!

Seriously, I don't know who a lot of online personalities are.  I come across their names in comboxes of my favorite blogs on occasion, but that doesn't mean I read what they have to say.  Neumayr stepped into the Guarnizo fray and went after Cardinal Wuerl, and I think may have clobbered a canonist and a priest or two in the process - I may be wrong on that however.  My problem is that I don't read really long blog posts or comments - and very few newspapers at that - something I'm told is considered a virtue in Alaskan gubernatorial candidates.  But I digress.

Back to Neumayr, and his lambaste against Cardinal Wuerl.  The other reason I did not read it in its entirety is because I also found it offensive.  Like him or not - you can't tear to pieces a Cardinal.  Bloggers and others do it - but it is wrong.  That said, I have to agree - to an extent - with this from a man named Winters who appears to write for the NCReporter:  (My comments in Periwinkle blue.)

Neumayr's venom is profoundly disturbing. (See, I thought so too.)  Certainly, his portrait of Cardinal Wuerl bears no resemblance to the man many of us have witnessed here in Washington the past few years. (I've never been in Washington, so I can't verify that one.) I doubt one makes it to the rank of cardinal if one is especially thin-skinned. (Even thick skinned people are offended by venomous attacks.)  I do not think Cardinal Wuerl winks at sacrilege let alone causes it. His reputation as a gentle pastor is well-earned and not the kind of thing to be lightly dismissed just because some yahoo wants the cardinal to join him in a culture war.  (I don't think I'm a yahoo - maybe a crackpot blogger - but I don't think it is too much to hope that a cardinal would be at the forefront of a culture war - even if he is busy on another front.) The priests I know, without exception, like him a lot and feel supported in their own ministry, and so the fact that he did not support Guarnizo likely tells us more about Guarnizo then it does about Cardinal Wuerl. (That may be true, but I hope Guarnizo is supported and ultimately vindicated - as well as defended against rogue canonists.)  But, in the right-wing blogosphere, if you do not toe the line to their version of orthodoxy, you are a heretic, even if you are the man chosen by Pope Benedict XVI to lead the next synod of bishops.  (That's also true.) - Michael Sean Winters, NCReporter

Priest are subject to their bishops - that is just a fact of life in the Roman Catholic Church - even when they don't want a particular Father in their diocese.  If we don't like the bishop, and or disagree with his policies - we at least owe him the respect and decorum due his office.  Big boy underwear or not.