Skip to comments.The revolt of the mothers
Posted on 05/25/2013 11:03:19 AM PDT by annalex
It is sometimes necessary to take time to plant milestones in the ephemeral fog of the current events. It is the duty of the historian.
Initially, everyone thought that in France the proposed bill on gay marriage was one of these gimmicks (I'm being polite) by which politicians amuse the gallery. And then we realized that behind the gimmick one of these perverse projects had slipped, that with which the deconstruction fanatics want to destroy a bit more of what remains of the foundations that still structure the European societies.
The question had nothing to do with any particular emotional or sexual minorities. Private life is everyone's own business. So far as personal preferences do not degenerate into outrageous provocative demonstrations, there is nothing to object against. Marriage is something else. Marriage does not refer to love, even if love is sometimes the result.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman in view of procreation. If we remove the difference of sex and procreation, nothing remains except the love that can evaporate. Unlike the Common Agricultural Policies of the European Union, marriage is an institution for children to come, and not just a contract.
This is why the proposed gay marriage was seen as an attempt that could not be supported by any of the ultimate foundations of our civilization. This is why the huge popular demonstrations of January 13 and March 24 announced the opposition. Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators (1.4 million according to the organizers) March 24, confined to the Avenue de la Grande Armee have become a symbol fitting the name of this famous thoroughfare. They saw themselves as the vanguard of the "great army" of those indignant of this "Taubira law." (*)
It is possible to destroy a civilization with a stroke of a pen. The French know that, for they have experienced it many times in their history since 1789 and even before. They also know from experience that it takes centuries of efforts to rebuild civilization.
After the first event on January 13, 2013 (one million "white of the white" participants, including many women and children), the March 24 brought together more participants yet. They even ended up occupying a portion of the Champs-Elysees despite the roadblocks set by the National Police and their tear gas.
One would be blind not to see the reality in this mobilization: a mass revolt against the destruction of the family, against the last pillar of our European civilization being shaken. Every child has the right to know where he comes from, who is his father and who is his mother. It is worth remembering that 33 centuries ago, the Trojan War was caused to enforce the union of Achaean king Menelaus and his wife Helen, kidnapped by a Trojan prince. All the kings of the Achaean federation had sworn to protect Helen's marriage to Menelaus. And they united to bring Helen's home. And war was concluded with the destruction of Troy. It became the narrative of the Iliad , the poem at the foundation of our civilization.
The first major event of 13 January took place in a rather playful atmosphere. The privileged who govern us have responded with a Soviet-style disregard to the call that was sent to them by the peaceful crowd. This is why the second event of 24 March, bringing together once again whole families had more tension. The people who govern us have responded another time with contempt to this popular indignation that they had not anticipated and cannot understand.
By this they committed a gross mistake. When such indignation mobilizes masses of young mothers and their children, it is a sign that a sacred part of what constitutes a nation has been transgressed beyond edurance. It is dangerous to provoke a revolt of the mothers!
It’s a sad time when Putin and the French make more sense than the powers that be in the US.
I am totally against homosexual marriage. It is in so many words Bull excrement.
There is not such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex.
I will work to stop it. But I’m damned if I would kill myself over it.
If it bothered me enough to die over, I would take some with me.
Ultimately, the "powers that be in the US" are, well, us. To paraphrase the Declaration, " while while evils are sufferable, they will be suffered." Everything has its limits.
Venner’s preoccupation with the procreative aspect of humanity (Genesis 1:28) appears (I say appears, because I have not read him regularly, and stand ready to be corrected) to have left him less appreciative of the other primary aspect of marriage, that is, companionship. (Genesis 2:18) It is this aspect of what is clearly identified as marriage in the Genesis text that is crucial to the understanding of marriage as the analogy of Christ and the Church. Venner, as I read him - and, again, I readily admit, I have not read him extensively at all - is preoccupied with the earthly, not spiritual, aspects of marriage, and seems not to appreciate the greater analogy of marriage being a reflection of the relationship of Christ and the the church, bridegroom and bride.
If this is true, it would go a long way in explaining his resort to suicide as an answer to the assault on marriage that is so common today. One wrong does not address another wrong! In other words, he was - sadly! - reading not too much into marriage, but too little, not appreciating fully the divorcement between God and man that has been result of man’s fall into sin.
Venner's suicide note gives the reasons and the French immigration policy is chief among them. The fact the protests over the gay "marriage" did not grow into a revolution is, we surmise, a factor in his despair but not one listed directly:
While I defend the identity of all peoples in their own homes, I also rebel against the criminal replacement of our people with other peoples.
He mentions, of course, the "selfish desires" but they underline both homosexual activism and the public lethargy toward unchecked immigration from the Muslim world.
Yes, but it is the procreative aspect of marriage that makes homosexual companionship, however comforting it might be to a gay couple, nothing like marriage. It, further, shows that far from being a caprice of sexual deviance between two consenting adults, the gay "marriage" fosters a truly criminal environment into which adopted children will be plunged:
Every child has the right to know where he comes from, who is his father and who is his mother
I have not read Venner till his tragic death, -- so his geste had the intended effect on me anyway, -- but it is becoming clearer with everything of his that I read, that him mindset is pagan. Here is the sacrifice of self on the altar that belongs to Christ alone but is to him a testament of the genius of the French, the longing for "ancestral religion", the allusions to the Iliad, and, of course, the apparent inability to place his act in the context of sin that it is.
I believe that you have made my point for me. Marriage, properly understood, is a reflection of the relationship between Christ, the Bridegroom, and His bride, the Church. That is, ultimately, why it is utterly indispensable. Homosexual “marriage” can never, ever reflect that. It is, at its root, antichristian. The demand for the recognition of same-sex “marriage” has little or nothing to do with civil-rights, persoal fulfillment or any of the other arguments commonly advanced. It is all about either the acknowledgement of the absolute necessity of Christ as the sole mediator between God and man, the facilitator of “companionship” between God and man or the utter rejection of Christ as in any way important to or necessary for the survival of the church and, by extension, of humanity as a whole. It is, at its root, profoundly and implacably anti-christian.
Venner’s concerns, however superficially laudable, appear to be wholly earth-bound and only coincidently congruent with those of God’s people.
You are right, I think, annalex, that his attitude seemed to have been more classical/pagan than Christian in origin. It would seem that he never fully grasped or considered important the full Christological significance of marriage as an institution.
Wow! I was not familiar with this man’s work until you recently posted the piece about his suicide. The world has lost a brilliant mind.
Thank you for furthering this topic.
It is true that marriage is a model of both the bride-groom ecclesiology and also the Holy Trinity, where the third person, the child, is a necessary element.
Neither was I familiar. I agree. I will try to post some more of his work.
I will try to post some more of his work.