The Taubira law of same sex marriage: Democracy or Demoralize-o-crazy!


Hello fellow citizens! So, you are a homo sapiens like me. Good. If you are a gay or lesbian, well, I am not like you. I am normal. Advantage you! You can legalize your marriage with the same sex partner as you like! Hollande and Taubira have made that a reality. Yes, the Taubira same sex marriage act has become a law from today! France has become the 14th country to have made legal the same sex marriage. To me this no reform but a deform and a decay!

Two days back the Supreme Constitutional Consulate has confirmed. The comedy is over. The curtain is drawn. The decision of the supreme body has gone the way it was expected. It has validated the entire provisions of the bill that was passed. The apex body has rightly said that its role is to set-right eventual short fall or ambiguity of the proposed act. Its role is that of a technician and not that of a politico-technocrat to be judgmental on the policy of the government.

To anyone sensible nothing can be said against the decision on its observation. It is in letter and spirit of the Constitutional frame work that we have given ourselves. But the same apex body did include a specific line as an observation. This line has kindled my neurons. Consequence is my reinforced conviction that such a law is a farce. The reason behind this article and my view point:

Let us first see the actual words of the Constitutional Consulate and I quote in verbatim:

By opening up the access of the institution of marriage to couples of same sex, the lawmaker has opined that the difference in definition of the term “the couple” formed by the union of one man and one woman and not “the couple” – formed by two humans of same sex, justified the claim that the couple formed of same sex will not get the same legal protection as defined by the institution of marriage is of sense seen purely from the technical point of view of law. This is our sole vocation as duty; it is certainly not to this Constitutional Consulate to sit on judgment, thus, to substitute the law maker, on the merit of consideration whether the concept of marriage does show the existence of such difference in situation or not.

You read like me, I suppose. You understand like me, I trust: the sex difference does not justify, any more, any difference in treatment. This validates the argument of the same sex marriage activists. This same argument is very much in utter contempt of the fundamental principle that says the equality of rights can but holds good in identical situations. Here is the first causality of human intelligence.

Above all, the Constitutional Consulate reaffirms a revolutionary principle that a law is well above the aspect of nature and custom. To put it differently, it is said that there exists no principle superior to the civil law. And if this so, it is for the law maker to define in total what reality, realism and real are.

It also amounts to say, that in virtue of fictional belief that the legislator has the general will of the society to legalize purely technically on anything as he may deem it fit, he can set a compendium to simply standardize the good and the bad. In the same right, he can define reality. He can give unto himself the Promethean power to confine Nature to the law he makes, he can force Nature to respect his law in utter disregard to tradition and customs. What I find absurd is the thought process of reasoning of the law maker. His absolute arrogance to defy something on which he has no control only reveals the mind-set of this moron. The law maker can define what marital union is; who constitutes that but he can never alter the natural resultant of the institution of marriage.

In the same élan of conceit, the law maker can define what life is and what death is. He can pass law to make-say and call man as woman, an apple as a root. He can decide and pass law to make animals to legalize their marriage, to allow incest. Let this be on one side.

On the other side it is said that the doctrine of the Declaration of human right and citizen act of 26th August 1789 defines a law to be the expression of the general willingness of the society. This is wrong. A law is the rule that abides the reality of nature that establishes the relationship between men (which includes women also) and the society. There are many ever existing realities. These have always been there before the present State. They are called societal customs and traditional values. The concept of family and the concept of marriage are other such values. It is voluntarily and universally accepted that a brother cannot have lust on his sister and vice versa. A son not to have a lust on his own mother. The latter is even defined as psychological disorder, the Oedepus complex. No one dare even to question these everlasting customs on relationship. In the same spirit to question and legitimate a marriage other than the one between a man and a woman is to put to referendum the very existence of one’s own mother or to question the natural reality. These things are beyond any audit.

With the Taubira law throwing open marriage to same sex, the French Government has raped the sanctity of the institution of marriage to profanity of merde-age – the shit of this age; democracy has been reduced to demoralize-o-crazy!

And here is I, the tax-paying, law abiding citizen and a civil servant of France declare solemnly unto myself that I protest and to exercise my individual right of democratic disobedience of the Taubira law What use you ask me? Well, at least the self-satisfaction to register my protest and not to belong to the set of arrogant morons!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s