Sunday, June 2, 2013

"We will surrender nothing"



Beautiful speech by Ludovine de la Gochere, president of La Manif Pour Tous, the movement defending marriage in France, before hundreds of thousands of supporters. Millions of people in France have protested the new "gay marriage" law.

Dear all,

There you are, such an enormous crowd—thank you!

Thank you to all the volunteers of La Manif pour Tous, in Paris, in the provinces too; and of course our spokespeople, among them the first of all, Frigide Barjot. You made possible our Manif pour Tous.

Thank you to intellectuals, jurists, union members, researchers, doctors, elected officials, all of whom have taken up our case. They had the courage to engage in free and independent thought.

Thanks most of all to you! The French of the metropolis, those overseas and abroad. You have the energy that was necessary to raise us up yesterday and today. And tomorrow you will lift us up also!

We are several million who have marched peacefully over the course of the long winter months against the new law, against artificial insemination, against surrogacy for all, against homophobia. We have neither broken a window, not one, nor set fire to a single car. Nothing of the sort!

We are neither a political movement, nor a faith-based movement, nor a coalition of hateful homophobes. Our adversaries have tried everything to paint us in such a way. But they have failed, because one cannot deny that our cause is open to all who worry about the rights and well-being of children. We are people who are but mindful of the interest, the balance, and the happiness of the family.

We are here, all so numerous, because our fundamental and universal values unite us.

The truth is that we do not have the same notion of equality as our opponents do. Our belief, held by most of the country, rests first on the equality of children, equality before the right to have a father and mother, that is to say, an origin and real heritage, rather than a false heritage. Based on that we have come together as atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, right, left, straight, gay. For all, the truth that we owe to the child is sacred. We do not want children’s lives to be woven around lies, nor do we want gender studies ideology to triumph.

Then, as our opponents do not understand us, they refuse to debate us, they mock us, and they libel us.

But this time, it is you who are facing the wind, at the failure of the meaning of history. For we do not search for a false sense of History; rather, we shall write it!

All the generations are here, and among them, fathers and mothers and youths, each one keeping watch over us, over all of France, in silence, peaceful.

Yes, we turn now to face the future: yes, we have faith in the future; yes, we build the future and that is why we protest. We want a better world, rather than a brave new world.

What have we discovered along this long road? We are not alone! We are no longer alone, isolated, considered old fuddy duddies, losers, or conservatives—rather, the others will be revealed as those who live outside of reality.

Yes, France has awoken!

We have carried out a historic mobilization. The Manif pour Tous is the biggest social movement that France has known since May 1968. Let us take stock of what we have accomplished: We are a social force, we are powerful and determined and organized. This success is owed principally to three causes: our lack of self-interest (for we are thinking of future generations), our concern to protect the weakest among us, our respect for the other.

Tomorrow will never be the same.

Now that we have risen up en masse, demanding to be heard, to reflect on this law, which is not only societal but a law of civilization—according to the words of Mrs. Taubira [France’s attorney general, the politician most associated with the law –Ed.] herself—what has been the response of the president of the Republic, the government, and the parliament? Condescension, arrogance, and mockery.

They claim to be men and women of dialogue and listening—but these are nothing more than words. We will have been received only a few minutes by the president of the Republic as well as by Erwan Binet, the caller of the law at the National Assembly; but never have we been received by Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, nor by Attorney General Christiane Taubira nor by Minister of Families Dominique Bertinotti; never by Jean-Pierre Michel, the bill’s sponsor in the Senate. All these have dismissed us and treated us as homophobes.

In addition to this refusal to dialogue with us, the government and its agencies have added violence and arbitrary oppression. Protests have been forbidden; innocent children, mothers, and peaceful old people were gassed on March 24; floats have been banned; people wearing Manif pour Tous sweatshirts have been arrested; a mother of a family has been assaulted while a prefect watched and said nothing thereby shaming the prefectoral force; peaceful vigil-keepers have been held for questioning and detained; marches leaving from Rennes to join us have been harassed and blocked every day—what a scandal!

What are their crimes? To be dressed up to protest peacefully, to keep watch in the evening while listening to the reading of the great texts regarding the doctrine of non-violence. And that is the democracy of Ayrault, Valls, and Taubira?

We have protested while respecting the laws of the Republic; they have reacted as the apparatchiks of a totalitarian state, and I choose my words carefully. Are we still living in a true democracy?

After having changed, arbitrarily, the definition of the word marriage, the powers that be have not stopped lying about the figures of the protests; they commanded the CESE to deem unacceptable seven hundred thousand petitions collected in three weeks. Such a scene has never before been seen in the Fifth Republic. While our constitution bans it, the deputies and the senators voted for the law following the roll call imposed by power, which is a characteristic of dictatorships. Only a few heroes have resisted the pressure, such as Bruno Nestor Azérot! In the Senate, there has been tampering and the vote was carried out not by actual votes but by raised hands. A denial of democracy in which the opposition party has been, by virtue of its passivity, complicit!

My elected officials, where was your freedom of conscience when you voted this law, which has been called to transform our civilization? Where was your courage, you who abstained? Where was your honor?

Our adversaries act this way because they are afraid, because the law they voted is a heinous law written under the pressure from the LGBT lobby—Pierre Bergé, a man totally marginal within the homosexual community, and they know it.

They act this way because they represent a former time, a time long past, that of deathly ideologues, a time when Man thought he was allowed all, not taking account of the humanity he would bestow on his children.

No more!

They tell us always in a peremptory manner that this law is societal, and a law of progress. But how can we believe them? Of what progress do they speak? Their progress, probably: that of marketing the human body, renting out wombs, lying, yes, you do not know it, but you will be able to have two fathers or two mothers, for whatever nature cannot provide, they will authorize. They are Prometheus.

Not long ago, we would have laughed at it; today we weep over it; we are aggrieved!

Thrown onto a toboggan of transgression, one can be stopped by nothing. So it goes with these false prophets of progress and modernity. Once they start talking about nature and ecology, they bandy about the principle of caution. But when it comes to mankind, then nature vanishes, and with it, caution.

Their mouths overflow with the words “equality of man and woman”: One must have equal representation in administrative councils, an egalitarian government, an egalitarian National Assembly. But why should marriage not be a place of equality, too, so that a child will be raised by man and woman? What a strange idea!

One would hope they will tell us: Stop! Listen to the people, let’s debate, let’s reflect. No such luck.

Then you, Mr. President of the Republic, who are supposed to ensure the unity of the French people: Quit being deaf and blind, stop dividing the French, stop raising the anger in all the country.

These are dangerous times. Before the lie and wickedness that this law puts in place, yes, the hour of resistance beckons us. This is a question of humanity, its future, the future of man and woman, our children, and their freedoms.

We too, we are aggrieved! That is why we launched the call on May 18, 2013. Our task is huge, but it is essential. We are numerous in France and in foreign lands too. The whole world watches us, because once again the French have dared to rise up against the tyranny of a minority and its colluders.

I announce to all of you, as well as to those who still think we will give up, that we will carry out this battle everywhere in France!

Lacking a timely and appropriate response from the president of the Republic to our gathering today, prepare yourselves for new actions in the days and weeks to come.

Beyond that, the Manif pour Tous will still be around. It will last, on the French and European landscape. We will participate actively in the life of the state with our convictions and our values.

La Manif pour Tous holds three missions to protect what we consider the key to our society: families, and I mean families.

First mission: the abolition of the Taubira law, if not tomorrow, then some time after. And we fight to block its immediate consequences: insemination for all and gestational surrogacy.

Second mission: Support all the men and woman of courage and good will who will defend their values in the State—the mayors, elected officials, members of civic groups, all who will take the floor in the public debates, opposed to marriage for all.

Third mission: Fight for the reality of man and woman to be recognized, and for the weakest in society to be defended.

We will continue without giving up to defend the male–female marriage, the heritage based on mother–father–child, families, the basic units of all society, places of togetherness for excellence, sources of all the human and economic bounty of society.

We are going to fight against gender studies ideology, the foundation of the “marriage for all” law. We will speak against its dissemination, in particular among the schools. We will lead surveys, publish studies, be activists. To that effect, memberships will be open to its sympathizers beginning in June.

The law is today in effect: so isn’t the last word already spoken on this? Shouldn’t hope disappear? Isn’t your defeat definitive? No!

Our movement of opposition will not stop, because it was born from an innate rejection, a deep refusal, of a law founded on a law that matters to all French people. We refuse for French politics to turn us away from the essential: the urgent preoccupations of the citizens who, today, face a dramatic economic and social situation.

Whatever happens, the torch of French resistance must not go out, and it will not go out: It is called to become ever stronger. The resistance will continue to build up the dam that alone shall stop the wave of plans doing harm to the common good, the future of society, the values of France, the respect of Man, and true democracy.

Stay ready.

Generations of the future count on us.

We will surrender nothing, ever, ever!

Vive l’Humanité!

Vive la France!

 Again:
"We have protested while respecting the laws of the Republic; they have reacted as the apparatchiks of a totalitarian state, and I choose my words carefully. Are we still living in a true democracy?... 
We will continue without giving up to defend the male–female marriage, the heritage based on mother–father–child, families, the basic units of all society, places of togetherness for excellence, sources of all the human and economic bounty of society. 
We are going to fight against gender studies ideology, the foundation of the “marriage for all” law. We will speak against its dissemination, in particular among the schools. We will lead surveys, publish studies, be activists."

Around the world, people are beginning to understand what is happening, and they are beginning to understand the nature of our avant-garde social engineers, who are totalitarians.

It's noteworthy that the massive French resistance to gay marriage seems to have selected Mother's Day in France as their day of protest. Poignant. We should do that.

God bless the New French Resistance. May they inspire Resistance movements around the world.

Marriage is a sacrament, given to us through God's grace. It is essential to our humanity and to our civilization, and to the protection of children, who have a right to a mother and a father in a stable loving family.

We will surrender nothing. 

19 comments:

  1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 2, 2013 at 9:35 AM

    "[W]hatever nature cannot provide, they will authorize. They are Prometheus..."
    --- Ludovine de la Gochere

    "[Y]ou will be like gods, who know good and evil."
    --- Genesis 3:5

    "Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
    --- E. Thomas, Newsweek (which recently sold for $1)

    The battle between tin gods and Truth has been going on since the beginning of human culture. It's had its ebb and flow. We have again reached a temporally local nadir (I hope) in which some individuals even justify their behavior based on the fact that animals do it. As a dog owner and lover, I find that justification puzzling. For example, I thought that potty training was a universally acknowledged social good, a necessary stage in human socialization... and then the Leftist Occupy "movement" moved. So I guess I understand the necessity to look to lower animals to support the current "Progressive" (meaning "back to the Pleistocene", apparently) culture.

    A good example is uber-Progressive Princeton utilitarian Peter Singer:

    Singer says that although the Judeo-Christian tradition maintains a gulf between men and animals, this may be just a Western construction. "We copulate, as they do," Singer insists. "They have penises and vaginas, as we do, and the fact that the vagina of a calf can be sexually satisfying to a man shows how similar these organs are."
    --- Daily Princetonian (2001)

    I suppose that's all well and good as a discussion between preeningly "open-minded" intellectualoids, but when you come home from work and find your son fucking the Irish setter it may be a different story.

    But above and beyond particular perversions of reason, is there anything more banal than the strutting pretensions of the Left? Even a writer from a nomadic desert tribe could see it, and that was several millennia ago. Of course, we can't forget that, with all due respect and in all fairness to the writer, he had some help.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's awful. Just awful. It's like the French have gone mad. I can't believe they banned both heterosexual marriage and families.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They have banned heterosexual marriage.

      "Marriage" no longer means "heterosexual". Ergo, heterosexual marriage is banned.

      Marriage now means any two people of age. You and I both agree that that has consequences. I think the consequences are bad. You think they are good.

      I'm winning, according to the facts.

      Delete
    2. The logic is silly. Let's see how it applies to interracial marriage.

      "Marriage" no longer means "between persons of the same race." Ergo, marriage between persons of the same race is banned.

      LOL

      Michael Egnor, I stand in awe of your stupidity.

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 2, 2013 at 12:26 PM

      If you're looking for weapons-grade stupidity, you need look no farther than an imbecile making an equivalence between sex and skin pigmentation.

      In other words, your own nose. You need to go back to sniffing butts, diaper-boy.

      Delete
    4. @Hoo:

      Interracial marriage makes my point, not yours.

      The ban (enacted by your Democrat ancestors) on interracial marriage was wrong for two reasons: it was racist, and it misrepresented marriage.

      It's wrong to discriminate on the basis of race, and it's wrong to impute to marriage criteria that don't apply to it.

      Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Race is irrelevant, and your (Democrat) laws that imposed racial categories on marriage were immoral.

      Laws that impose same-sex relationships on marriage are immoral as well.

      Marriage has a meaning-- the union between a man and a woman. Laws defining marriage as between people of the same race are as immoral as laws defining marriage as between people of the same sex.

      Both laws lie about marriage.

      Delete
    5. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 2, 2013 at 12:55 PM

      No one should ever forget that Jim Crow was a collection of official government policies concocted by Democrat politicians.

      Delete
    6. Adm:

      You're right. Segregation was the epitome of Democrat Progressivism and government social engineering.

      The first Progressive Democrat president, Woodrow Wilson, immediately segregated the federal government after taking office, much to the outrage of Republicans, who had integrated it for a half-century after the Civil War.

      Segregation was primarily a Progressive social policy, intended to engineer white/black relations in accordance with ideals proclaimed by Democrat elites. Segregation was often defended by Democrat assertions that it was necessary to advance "nigger" interests as much as it was necessary to advance white interests.

      The true history of racism in America has been twisted beyond recognition by Democrats, Progressives and their allies. Progressive Democrats were the fount of Jim Crow and segregation, and even Democrats who themselves didn't champion segregation (FDR) cut intimate deals with their Democrat brethren who did, to maintain power. Republicans bitterly opposed segregation.

      In the 1960's, Democrats dropped "Progressive" for "Liberal", because people back then knew what Progressive meant, and adjusted their social engineering to enslave blacks to government dependence in order to garnish their votes.

      Detroit is the result.

      Delete
    7. Michael,

      You're still confused as to the meaning of words. 'Progressive' and 'conservative' are on the same continuum, both arguing for control of the individual by the majority, either by the state or society.

      'Liberal' and 'libertarian' are on the same continuum, both arguing for individual freedom, but differing in the degree of economic freedom and government regulation of corporations.

      Anyway. Your comparison of same sex and same race marriage is invalid. Besides the fact that biologically there's no such thing as human 'race'.

      'Interracial' marriage shouldn't be banned. But it's also not compulsory. Everyone regards almost everyone else as not an attractive partner for life, even if that person is of similar appearance, age, physical fitness, educational level, etc.

      There's no law forcing anyone to marry someone from a different 'race', and in fact, it's still unusual.

      The same should apply to same sex marriage. Allowed but not compulsory.

      Although, I think it's a low priority social reform. I tend to support it on the basis that homosexuals have as much right to be unhappy in their marriage choices as heterosexuals (in a previous thread, you'd noted, as if it were a positive for heterosexual marriage, that in Britain 82% of marriages were still intact after 8 years - meaning that 18% had ended, not a great figure).

      Delete
    8. Interracial marriage makes my point, not yours.

      Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. What it clearly does is demonstrate that your logic is silly.

      Letting homosexuals couples marry imposes no ban on heterosexual marriage.

      Stupid is as stupid does.

      Hoo

      Delete
    9. Gay marriage eliminates heterosexual marriage.

      Obviously heterosexuals retain marriage licenses, etc. but what the law calls marriage is no longer real marriage.

      It is the same as if a new law declared everyone a "veteran", whether or not they had served in the military. Such a law would do violence to meaning, and render the designation "veteran" meaningless.

      And it would be analogous to calling everyone a "liberal". Then even people who aren't stupid would be called liberal, and liberal would lose all meaning.

      Delete
    10. Gay marriage eliminates heterosexual marriage.

      In the same way as interracial marriage eliminates intra-racial marriage. Which it doesn't.

      And yes, there are conservatives who call themselves "classic liberals." They are free to do so.

      Hoo

      Delete
    11. @Hoo:

      Same-race marriage is the same error as same-sex marriage.

      Marriage has a definition-- the union of a man and a woman.

      Progressive social engineering-- imposing racial categories on marriage, or imposing gay relationships on marriage-- is immoral and demeans real marriage, which is male-female and independent of racial categories.

      Delete
    12. Do you take back your statement that same-sex marriage bans heterosexual marriage?

      Hoo

      Delete
  3. mregnorJ "They have banned heterosexual marriage. 'Marriage' no longer means 'heterosexual'. Ergo, heterosexual marriage is banned."
    So are married heterosexual French couples "grandfathered in" or do they have to turn in their marriage licenses (will the gendarme come out and get them)? And are the gays now allowed to rush heterosexual married couples and suck the sanctity out of their marriages, or is osmosis good enough?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're grandfathered, but now you have to call it "grandpersoned".

      Your use of the old term is homophobic. If I knew your name, I'd call the gendarme and report you.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The speech is incredibly eloquent.
    Further, it touches on the main principle that we should all be able to agree upon: The 'nuclear' family (man, woman, and children) has been the basis of our civilization. It is the central unit. I am reminded of the old saying: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Children deserve a family. All this hedonistic crap (including homosexual 'marriage', trendy promiscuity sold as 'healthy', 'partners', 'open relationships', and rampant divorce) is anathema to that deserved right. By promoting this behaviour in media, legally, and politically our civilization will pay a heavy toll. Just as those indulgent empires of days gone by did.
    Gay 'marriage' is typical of the synthesis these control freak social engineers wish to push on all of us. The family is an impediment to their cause. They seek to undermine and destroy any such bond. Us 'breeders' are only useful for one thing, and that is quickly becoming obsolete in the eyes of the 'progressives' and 'globalists'.
    They know selfish greed and hedonism work like a charm (pun intended)...So, why not kill two birds with one stone? Undermine the family (starting from the most basic union of man and woman) and promote a sterile, diseased, and immoral lifestyle in one fell swoop.
    It's the perfect plan for the modern Babylonian mindset. It's a win win for them. A brilliant stratagem from all the little adversaries of all that is sacred and natural.
    It will, of course, result in long term failure. Probably a horrible backlash for all the (homosexual) dupes who went along with it. As my one of my instructors was fond of saying '..pissing in the wind is real fun, till it sprays you in the face'.
    Finally, what ever happened to 'gay pride'? Why are all the homosexuals now embracing a disorder as the reason for their passions? Why on earth would they want to use the term 'marriage' when that is effectively hiding their difference? Where is the 'pride' in any of this? When the argument was that they (a homo couple) LOVED each other and that they were proud of that love, it made some sense. Love mitigated the sin/unnatural nature of the sexual union, they argued, and so they were different and PROUD of it.
    Now it is pride in a disorder? Now it is about conforming to norms?
    Sounds more like 'gay shame' to me.
    Like I noted previously: Dupes. Useful dupes to people who see them as pathetic, sick, tools to be used and discarded when the political winds change.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wouldn't that be something if it turns out to be the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" who refuse to surrender to "the gay agenda" (which is just one more sock-puppet of the leftists), and thereby begin the reclamation of Western Civ?

    ReplyDelete