Comments on: Martinique: Homophobia and Segolene Royal's Socialist Party

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:06:49 +0000

Hi Jen,

I love your analysis.

A Ted fellow from Martinique.

By: Global Voices Online » Blog Archive » Martinique: Is a Local Referendum on Potential Same-Sex Marriage Law Feasible?

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:21:12 +0000

[...] A local Martiniquan gay rights site claims that Raymond Occolier, a local official known for past homophobic statements, has announced that he will hold a local referendum if a same-sex marriage law passes in mainland France. Le Blog de [Moi] (Fr) responds, after protracted analysis of relevant laws, that “none of the cited local entities… is [legally] competent to organize such a referendum.” Alice Backer [...]

By: Jennifer Brea

Jennifer Brea — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:01:18 +0000

(Forgive me, Moi, for putting words in your mouth.) IMHO, I don’t think that by her comment Moi meant that “reason has no role in public debate.” She’s just not personally willing to entertain any argument – rational or religious – that homosexuality is wrong, although (I assume) she would hardly deny others the right to do so.

In general, I think you would be hard-pressed convincing an out lesbian blogger that any rational argument would justify her being denied the right to marry a woman she loves. It would be the same as trying to convince me that my mother and father should not have been allowed to marry because there are some who have crafted “rational” arguments that show miscegenation of the races is not only sinful, it’s socially harmful. The idea is so contrary to my very existence, and the right answer so self-evident, that seriously entertaining rational arguments on the subject seems just as ridiculous as contemplating the religious ones. But it doesn’t mean I would want to deny others the right to do so.

The other comment I would make is that the French concept of “laicite” is a much stronger version of secularism than what exists in most anglophone countries, so statements of opinion made by French politicians on the basis of their religious beliefs would be highly controversial in ways that they are not on the US, for example. (That said, didn’t Sarkozy recently say something to the effect of, “the state should consider spirtual matters?”) Now, you could of course debate whether laicite is an acceptable political principle, but it’s the law in France (and presumably in Martinique), and so on that basis politicians (and young Muslim schoolgirls) are not supposed to bring their private religion into public life. Period.

Anyway, I think it’s absolutely fascinating to see the extreme disconnect between French and Martinique public debate on this issue!

By: Jordan & Maria Seidel

Jordan & Maria Seidel — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:13:18 +0000

ok, but if reason has no role in public debate on issues, then why not simply use religious arguments, or emotive arguments? my point here is that even if you don’t think there can be any rational argument to support a ban on homosexual marriages, surely you don’t think that the way we arrive at such conclusions should be outside public discourse conducted rationally? how do you arrive at your conclusion that secular reason could not support a ban? what’s your argument? simply that you are right?

By: [moi]

[moi] — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:06:54 +0000

The real issue here is that it’s a secular state ! Religion don’t have to interfere. That’s the point.
By the way, it isn’t more acceptable to use secular reason to argue against homosexual marriage.

By: Jordan & Maria Seidel

Jordan & Maria Seidel — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:55:11 +0000

interesting post…the question i have is if it’s acceptable that a public official uses religion as a basis for their personal beliefs on a public policy question? or should they be a mouthpiece for those who elected them?…is it more acceptable to use a secular reason to argue against homosexual marriage? what is the real issue here?