The Ugly Views of Catherine Deneuve: "For adoption, against marriage"

Deneuve contre le "mariage pour tous" by LeHuffPost

For adoption, against marriage
By Tiberge
May 8, 2013
GalliaWatch

Catherine Deneuve is against "Marriage for Everyone". But her reasons are cynical and useless to the cause of French traditionalists. In the video the still-beautiful actress is supportive of homosexual adoption (without marriage) and indifferent to marriage in general:

- (...) It left me a bit perplexed. I would have preferred them to improve considerably the PACS and to allow adoption for homosexuals. People marry a lot and divorce a lot. So eventually, it may become a frightening situation. There are very few children at school with a father and a mother.

- It's a question of rights.

- Yes, but they could have just as easily improved the PACS so that the rights would be the same. Why marry when everyone is divorcing? It's bizarre. But the issue of rights could be settled differently without marriage.

Reminder: The PACS is the existing civil union agreement for heterosexual and homosexual couples. Adoption is a complex question. The PACS allows for adoption, but only by an individual. The couple, as a couple, cannot adopt. Filiation is established through the person who is adopting. That person alone has parental authority.

Note: I have always found Catherine Deneuve to be exquisitely beautiful, even as she aged. But there was a cold-blooded cynicism in her look and her words in this video that betray her lack of connection to or affection for traditional France, traditional Western civilization and traditional morality. While it is true that people marry and divorce frivolously, this is not a reason for throwing gasoline on the fire. Being a woman with two illegitimate children, and no interest in marriage (she was married once, and wore black, presumably to show off her disregard for convention) she could not bring herself to endorse a family values program that would attempt to strengthen marriage and in-wedlock birth, encourage young couples to stay together, and restore the teaching of French culture in the schools to better revive a feeling of national identity and personal responsibility. She does none of that. It is not in her nature. Instead she advocates adoption for anyone, and marriage for no one, essentially in line with François Hollande's thinking.

We have always known that celebrities often live more turbulent personal lives than the rest of us. In recent decades that has changed and what the general population does today makes the Hollywood stars of yesteryear look like stodgy stay-at-homes. But the fact that "everybody does it" does not make it right. For a famous personality to say that it does is cause for concern. What makes her think that a gay couple joined by the PACS will not do as much harm to the child as a married couple who divorces? And what makes her think that PACS couples will not separate, leaving as much, if not more, destruction behind as those who divorce?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------