Marriage equality is coming to France

The National Assembly of France has voted 331–225 to enable marriage equality (via):

French lawmakers have legalized same-sex marriage after months of bruising debate and street protests that brought hundreds of thousands to Paris.

Tuesday’s 331-225 vote came in the Socialist majority National Assembly. France’s justice minister, Christiane Taubira, said the first weddings could be as soon as June….

And regarding those protests, they were weird in light of something I mentioned years ago:

The number of PACS [the French acronym of the Civil Solidarity Pact] celebrated in France, both gay and heterosexual unions, has grown from 6,000 in its first year of operation in 1999 to more than 140,000 in 2008, according to official statistics. For every two marriages in France, a PACS is celebrated, the statistics show, making a total of half a million PACS[']ed couples, and the number is rising steadily.

[...]

Perhaps more important as an indication of how French people live, the number of heterosexual men and women entering into a PACS agreement has grown from 42 percent of the total initially to 92 percent last year [2008].

Notice how all those PACS were actually reducing the number of marriages? Enabling same–sex marriage eliminates this justification for PACS. But the protestors would rather there be fewer marriages rather than marriage equality.

More evidence that LGBT parents are good

Yet another study has found that gay and lesbian parents are just as good as straight parents, even when the circumstances are (for lack of a better term) stacked against them. It examined (at 2, 12, and 24 months after adoption) 82 high–risk children who were adopted. Of those children, 60 were adopted by different–sex couples and 22 by same–sex couples. The result?

From the abstract:

On average, children in both household types showed significant gains in cognitive development and maintained similar levels of behavior problems over time, despite gay and lesbian parents raising children with higher levels of biological and environmental risks prior to adoptive placement. Results demonstrated that high-risk children show similar patterns of development over time in heterosexual and gay and lesbian adoptive households.

And as mentioned at Salon, LGBT couples were more likely to adopt higher–risk high–risk children.

These results are entirely consistent with numerous previous studies: same–sex couples are just as good at parenting as different–sex couples, and perhaps even a little bit better.

Of course, I know that (almost certainly) not one wingnut or homophobe will change their views about this. Besides being driven by homophobia, I also see those people’s opposition to LGBT adoption as being driven by misogyny. After all, if you truly, truly believed that abortion was murder, how the hell could being adopted by a same–sex couple possibly be worse than killing someone? Now, you would think that it would be better to be adopted by a same–sex couple than to be dead. This would apply even if same–sex couples were the worst possible parents (which they’re not). This is why anyone who is why simultaneously being both anti–choice and anti–LGBT adoption is a hopelessly incoherent position. These people cannot possibly think that research going on since the 1970′s and all showing the same result (same–sex couples are just as good as different–sex couples) is inadequate. The only possible explanation is that they really do believe that being raised by a same–sex couple is worse than death. If they do believe that then they really are the worst sort of homophobe. If they don’t, then they are simply the usual anti–choicer who sees forced birth as a woman’s punishment for daring to have sex. That’s why those people’s opposition to LGBT adoption is motivated not only by homophobia but also by deep misogyny.

Via slendermeans.

This person really said this

[TW: Anti–Semitism, misogyny, homophobia]

While looking for something else entirely, I came across this disturbing blog. It’s called Santorum 2012 and self–describes in its Twitter feed as “A blog in support of, but not affiliated with, Santorum for President.” Considering that this blog’s Twitter feed says “All RTs [that is, retweets] are endorsements” (my interpolated note) and that some things originally tweeted by a member of Westboro Baptist Church (Fred Phelps and his ilk; the people who protest at soldiers’ funerals) are retweeted (that is, endorsed), I think I’ve found out all I need to know about this person. The fact that WBC are serious in their homophobia makes me pretty certain that this blog is not a Poe.

I’d like to draw me readers’ attention to one particular post. It’s titled “Plan B is nothing but ‘Plan A’ for the Immoral“. The topic of that post is criticizing the support that the women on The View have for birth control. The complete text is as follows (my emphasis and parenthetical notes):

In the town where this blogger was raised, five or more women under the same roof is considered a brothel (according to Snopes, this is false).  So, it’s not surprising that the ladies on “The View” are supportive of birth control methods, including abortion and Plan B.  Not only are these women typical immoral ‘feminists’, they are also, in some cases, Lesbians and/or Jewesses…. (Last sentence asking people to watch a video in that post omitted).

Rather that attempting to come up some legitimate argument to make, this person attacks the women of The View because they are female, feminist, lesbian, or Jewish.

Misogyny, lesbophobia, and anti–Semitism, all in one post.

After the jump are screenshots I’ve saved in case this person tries to delete their post.

Anti-gay bigotry weakens marriage

I came across this story on Pam’s House Blend (my emphasis):

Gay activists in Russia are planning to ask air passengers to boycott Aeroflot, Russia’s leading airline and not to use its services until the creation of equal conditions for all workers.

The call [for a boycott] comes following the revelation that gay flight attendant Maxim Kupreev was forced by his employers to enter into heterosexual marriage with his former high school girlfriend following his announcement last year to create an LGBT group within the company to fight for the protection of the rights of homosexual employees.

[...]

According to internal Aeroflot sources reported by GayRussia.eu, 25-year-old flight attendant Maxim Kupreev was given an ultimatum late last year to enter into heterosexual marriage or to lose his job. At the end of 2011 he married his school friend Sofia Mikhailova who got the right to fly Aeroflot for 10% of the fare – and other company privileges.

In order to register marriage with Kupreev, Mikhailova had to dissolve her real marriage to Grigoriy Andreykin. The divorce was finalised on 11 October last year.

Besides the fact that this is blatant bigotry, I’d also like to emphasize that this is actually weakening the sort of marriage anti–LGBT activists are always claiming needs to be protected.* First, Kupreev did not marry for any of the reasons anti–LGBT bigots are always claiming the purpose of marriage is (like having children), but rather to keep his job. And it required some other (different–sex) marriage to accomplish that. And if those things don’t weaken marriage, it’s beyond me how same–sex marriage possibly could.

* As far as I know, marriage equality hasn’t been much of an issue in Russia, and therefore I can’t know what sort of arguments are used about it over there. However, if I had to guess, anti–LGBT activists over there would probably use the same sorts of (refuted) arguments that are used over here.

When you think they couldn’t go any lower (updated)

Shorter GOP in Michigan Senate: “It’s okay to bully in the name of Jesus.”

A bill was recently passed by the Michigan Senate. It is a purported anti–bullying bill, but in reality the bill basically protects those who bully based on moral convictions:

This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.

In other words, it’s a how to bully act.

In addition, while IANAL, the law protects sincerely held beliefs, including those by teachers. If a teachers sincerely believes that people in group X are going to burn in hell forever, this law seems to protect those statements. Hence, the la looks like it also serves as a backdoor way to legalize proselytization in school, therefore violating the Establishment Clause.

Via Lawyers, Guns, and Money.

Update: The section in question has been dropped from the bill (via).

This still doesn’t justify opposition

Many opponents of marriage equality often justify their opposition on religious grounds. The essence of all this is basically the belief that gay sex (or homosexuality), is a sin. In actuality, such a belief does not actually provide justification for being against marriage equality. This is the case even if we put their premises in the best possible light.

To show why, the first thing I’ll do is grant, just for the sake of argument, that gay sex is a sin. But the sinfulness of gay sex does not provide justification opposition to marriage equality. If gay sex was their only problem, then they would have to have no problem with a sexless same–sex marriage. After all, if both parties in a sexless same–sex marriage remained celibate, there would be no gay sex and therefore no sin. Since there’s no sin, no justification for opposition remains.

Analogous reasoning can be used for homosexuality. If we grant for the sake of argument that homosexuality is a sin, then they would have to have no problem with a same–sex marriage between straight people. In such a same–sex marriage, there’d bo no homosexuality, and therefore no sin.

But of course, it’s obvious that wingnuts’ opposition to same–sex marriage isn’t really about any deeply–held beliefs, or any real concern for the sanctity of marriage, but rather due to animosity towards LGBT people. And besides, coherence from fundies and wingnuts is as likely as snow falling on Tarawa.

On the Saskatchewan decision

Recently, a court in Saskatchewan ruled that marriage commissioners there are not allowed to refuse to marry same–sex couples due to religious objections.

This is the correct decision. No one forced you to become a marriage commissioner. You knew going into it that you might have to marry same–sex couples. Since you chose to enter it you should face the consequences of your actions. To do otherwise is disrespectful as it tell you that you are not a rational person who is responsible for their actions. To insist that you should not be forced to do your job goes against the principle of personal responsibility. Why do conservatives hate personal responsibility?

Religion is a choice. Absolutely no one is forcing you to follow a religion that requires bigotry against gays and lesbians. And if you truly believed that marrying a same–sex couple would send you to hell, well guess what. There is no way that losing your job could possibly be worse than that. To act otherwise is to betray a serious lack of conviction. Why do conservatives have such weak convictions?

There is no way that grandfathering in bigots who were marriage commissioners before same–sex marriage was approved is a good move. Suppose that at one time, the age of consent was fourteen. Suppose further that it is raised to sixteen. The idea that we should allow those who previously had sex with fifteen–year–olds continue having sex with fifteen–year–olds is an idea that ain’t gonna fly.

If you can’t be forced to do your job, other people should not be forced to employ you. To insist otherwise, you are forcing the government to hire extra marriage commissioners, thereby wasting taxpayers’ money. Why are conservatives in favour of big government?

If you think that you shouldn’t be forced to do the job you signed up for if you are a marriage commissioner, you undoubtedly take the same view of a Friend or Jain (these are Pacifist faiths) joining the military but refusing to fight, claiming freedom of religion. Any argument that would apply to marriage commissioners would also apply to military deserters. Why do conservatives hate the troops so much?