Local paper La Voix du Nord summarizes the main bones of contention in the National Assembly debates on the Gay marriage and adoption bill, including ART, the legal redefinition of the words mère and père, and the attribution of surnames.
Article source: "Mariage pour tous : noms de famille, mots "père et "mère" et toujours PMA en débat", AFP, La Voix du Nord, 05/02/2013
Photo: AFP
The successive U-turns of the French government on the extension of assisted reproductive technology (ART), the passing on of surnames and the words “father” and “mother” in the civil code fuelled tense exchanges in the National Assembly this Monday during the debate about marriage and adoption for homosexual couples.
Députés had spent the entire weekend in session for the first time in eight years, and they debated into the early hours of Monday morning. They reconvened at 4 p.m. under the watchful gaze of opposition spokeswoman Frigide Barjot, concluding proceedings shortly after 1 a.m.. Discussion of the bill will resume on Tuesday, after the usual session of questions to the government.
In the evening there were heated exchanges between the UMP and Justice Minister Christiane Taubira, who denounced a UMP member’s use of the phrases “pink triangle” and “black triangle”, alluding to the symbols used by the Nazi regime. Christian Jacob, leader of the UMP in the National Assembly, who called the Minister’s intervention “disgraceful”, responded by claiming that it was a PS député who had first evoked the “pink triangle”, the week before.
The UMP kept up its war of attrition against the wording of the legislation, proposing numerous identical amendments with a view to doing away with several of the bill’s provisions. Supporters of the bill on the Left voted several times to reduce the length of general debate on each article in an attempt to call time on discussions it thought were going round in circles. The tactic was denounced by the opposition Right wing.
Long exchanges focused on one particular provision of the text which provides that, in the event of disagreement or the absence of choice on the part of parents, both of their surnames will be given to the child, in alphabetical order, as a double-barrelled name. At present, the surname given to the child is that of the father.
According to Bernard Accoyer (UMP), this would constitute “a revolution”. Hervé Mariton (UMP), accusing the government and the house majority of “deceiving the French people”, emphasized the fact that in the future, “in the event of the absence of a joint declaration, and if the parents do not take steps, the child will not take the father’s name”.
Despite being in favour of the provision concerning the passing on of surnames, Alain Tourret, a Left wing radical, nevertheless worried about its “technical” aspects, raising the possibility that an adopted child may end up with three names.
Family Minister Dominique Bertinotti claimed in the corridors of the National Assembly that “nothing is set in stone” and that the government would “try to come up with something satisfactory”, perhaps with the aid of successive readings by both in the Assembly and the Senate.
Another recurring criticism from the Right is that the prospective law will “weaken future adoptions”, especially international ones. This argument was challenged by Mrs. Bertinotti who criticized the UMP for “once again playing on people’s fears”.
The modifications of the words père and mère in the civil code have also been a bone of contention. The rewritten article 4 of the bill (known as a “sweeping up” article), consists of a long series of coordinated clauses aimed at replacing the terms “father” and “mother” with “parents”, indicates that the provisions of the civil code apply “to parents of the same sex when referring to the father and the mother”, etc.
Philippe Gosselin, one of the most vocal members of the UMP, denounced this as: “A sleight of hand which sweeps 170 occurences of the terms “father” and “mother” under the carpet and which profoundly alters family and parental law”.
Charles de Courson, a member of the UDI, heckled: “If you liked George Orwell’s novel 1984, you will love article 4. It’s a strict application of Newspeak”.
Chritiane Taubira, the Minister of Justice, hammered home the point that where biological parenthood was concerned, “nothing has been modified” but that the “necessary modifications”, especially concerning the term “parents”, applied to adoptive parenthood.
Early on Monday morning, Hervé Mariton had suggested that “the pressure of the opposition and of public opinion will have proven useful considering the the government’s backpedalling on assisted reproductive technology”.
The extension of ART, currently restricted to sterile heterosexual couples, to cover other situations (lesbian couples , single women, etc) is divisive, even within the government and the Left.
Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault confirmed on Monday that a bill on the family, which would include ART, initially announced as part of a cabinet meeting in March, was in fact planned “before the end of the year”, after the report of the French National Consultative Ethics Committee due in autumn.
If ART was not part of a family bill, “socialist députés would do what was needed”, PS spokesperson Frédérique Espagnac, warned, implicitly threatening an amendment. Conversely, a PS député claimed that ART was “likely” to be shelved.
Translation: Andréa Rome and Sophie Pacier
Editing: Sam Trainor