The Dictionary of Homophobia (16 page)

Héritier, Françoise.
Masculin/Féminin 2: Dissoudre la hiérarchie
. Paris: Odile Jacob, 2002.

Kenyatta, Jomo.
Facing Mount Kenya: The Tribal Life of the Gikuyu
. London: Secker & Warburg, 1938.

Mauss, Marcel.
Sociologie et anthropologie (1950)
. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2001.

Mendès-Leite, Rommel.
Le Sens de l’altérité: penser les (homosexualités)
. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2000.

Poirier, Guy.
L’Homosexualité dans l’imaginaire de la Renaissance
. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1996.

Théry, Irène. “Différence des sexes et différences des générations: l’institution familiale en déshérence,”
Esprit
, no. 12 (1996).

———. “Le Contrat d’union sociale en question.”
Esprit
, no. 10 (1997). Also published as no. 91 of
Notes de la Fondation Saint-Simon
.

———. “PaCS, sexualité et différence des sexes.”
Esprit
, no.

257 (1999).

Williams, Walter L. “Being Gay and Doing Fieldwork.” In
Out in the Field: Reflections of Lesbian and Gay Anthropologists
. Urbana-Chicago: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1996.

—Africa, Central & Eastern; Africa, Southern; Africa, Western; Essentialism/Constructionism; Heresy; History; Latin America; Marriage; Oceania; Parenting; Southeast Asia; Rhetoric; Sociology; Symbolic Order.

ANTI-PaCS

The Pacte civil de solidarité (Civil solidarity pact), better known as PaCS, was proposed by the French government of Prime Minister Lionel Jospin in 1998 (after being initially drafted a year earlier) and approved by the French Parliament in November 1999, but not without controversy. PaCS is a form of legal partnership between two adults (whether same-sex or opposite-sex) with some, but not all, of the rights and responsibilities of traditional marriage. When it was first introduced, there was vocal opposition, some of which came from those on the political left. However, the expression “anti-PaCS” specifically applies to the opposition expressed by right-wing groups and individuals (including politicians) who rallied against the adoption of a bill that would extend rights to same-sex couples. The name echoes “anti-IVG” (
interruption volontaire de grossesse
; elective abortion), a pro-life movement whose members also became involved in the fight against PaCS; Génération anti-PaCS, the collective that spearheaded protests against the proposal, represented the convergence of militants from family (i.e. pro-life) associations with those from two political parties, the right-wing RPR (Rassemblement pour la Republique; Rally for the Republic) and the centrist UDF (Union pour la democratie Française; Union for French Democracy). While demonstrations against the proposal were highly visible during the final months of parliamentary debate, these protests were the result of years of campaigning led by extreme right-wing organizations. The idea of a law recognizing same-sex couples mobilized the ultra-conservative group Associations familiales catholiques (AFC; Catholic Family Associations) as early as 1997. Of all the family associations, this group was ideologically the closest to the right-wing National Front party, which explains why the National Front was only marginally visible as a separate entity in the anti-PaCS campaign. This battle was considered so important by the AFC that it preferred to delay its annual pilgrimage to the sacred site of Lourdes, France, in order to “allow families to mobilize against PaCS.” Its campaign launched in January 1998 with the distribution of a four-page document describing the then-named CUCS (Contrat d’union civile et sociale; Civil and social union contract) as a “discount
marriage
” “with all the rights (advantages)” of a marriage, “without its duties (inconveniences),” and claiming that it originated as a result of the “powerful homosexual
lobby
.” At the same time, the AFC stated that, if passed, the law would cause a number of things to happen: destabilize society, disintegrate the nation’s social fabric, threaten traditional common-law marriage, act against the best interests of children, eventually lead to the legal recognition of polygamy, and even give rise to “the emergence of a multicultural society that will result in the formation of
ghettos
and increase exclusion.” In all, 100,000 copies were distributed, mostly during World Youth Day events. The idea of lobbying followed; the most successful operation was one organized by the Collectif des maires pour le mariage républicain (Collective of mayors for republican marriage), known as the “Anti-CUS Mayors” (“CUS” being the appended form of CUCS) campaign, which was officially supported by a UDF mayor but can be traced back to the AFC.

The “Anti-CUS Mayors” Campaign
The anti-CUS mayors’ campaign began with an April 15, 1998 article published in the French newspaper
Le Monde
with the headline “12,000 Mayors Opposed to Social Union Contract.” At the time, the CUS proposal was still being formulated and had not yet been debated in Parliament, so the news of a revolt by a collective of 12,000 mayors, all of whom were signatories to a petition opposing “gay marriage,” made a lot of noise. But how were the document’s signatures collected, and who financed it? Information supplied from organizers revealed the rudimentary details of a mail campaign that took place over a three-month period. All that is known is that a first letter, accompanied by a declaration of intent to be returned to the organizers, was sent to the 36,700 mayors of France on March 2. In an alarmist tone, the letter asked them to “defend republican marriage” by opposing the CUS, which it claimed would allow “real homosexual marriage.” To this end, the recipients needed only to sign a form letter, by which they would declare themselves to be “concerned with the preservation of the family as a natural and fundamental element of any society” and opposed “to the establishment of a union contract for same-sex couples … and the implication of the mayor, as a civil officer, in officiating over such a contract,” The result: 12,000 signatures collected in a few weeks. In a press release proudly announcing the operation, the Collectif proclaimed the 12,000 French mayors to “safeguard republican marriage,” and that many mayors would resign should the CUS be adopted. Buoyed by this success, Michel Pinton, spokesperson for the Collectif, even circulated a repulsively homophobic “Call to Mayors for a Real Debate”: “In our unhealthy French society, two healthy components—the family and the municipality, both vitally important for our democracy—are threatened by catastrophic deterioration” by the “poison” of the CUS. But soon thereafter, doubts began to surface.

Three weeks after the announcement of the petition, neither Pinton nor Vianney Mallein, the chief of the communication agency responsible for the file, were willing to publish the list of petitioners, despite repeated calls from journalists. However, when the list was finally obtained, it was primarily composed of mostly rural mayors of tiny municipalities and with no political affiliation. Still, another association was active in the campaign against the CUS: the Avenir de la culture (Future of the Culture), whose campaign against the proposal resulted in a huge number of protest postcards sent to the Prime Minister’s Matignon office (and official residence).

The Campaigns of Avenir de la Culture
In the summer of 1998, five months after the anti-CUS petition, the Avenir de la culture set up an operation aimed at flooding the Matignon office with pre-addressed postcards against the “homosexual marriage” bill, which it considered “loathsome” and “repugnant.” It featured an image of a traditional family pierced by lightning, over a background image of a torn map of France; the other side of the card contained a hate-filled message:

Mister Prime Minister, your project to recognize homosexual ‘marriage’ and the equality between cohabitation and marriage is unacceptable…. It is the choice of a decadent society, which sets us back two thousand years. Tomorrow, in France, sexual deviation will become the norm and marriage outdated!… Mister Prime Minister, I enjoin you to renounce this loathsome bill that will destroy the remains of civilization that still separate us from barbarism.

In all, Matignon received between 70,000 and 100,000 cards between July and August 1998. Though the government mail service may have shredded the cards immediately, the sheer number and the media coverage were enough to guarantee the desired affect.

So who is Avenir de la culture? Founded in 1986 and under the direction of Luc Berrou, the association appears to be linked to a Brazilian sect known as TFP (Tradition, Family, Property). Launched in 1960 by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, TFP became known in France in the mid-1980s by participating in large protests against the controversial films
Je vous salue, Marie
(
Hail Mary
) by Jean-Luc Godard and
The Last Temptation of Christ
by Martin Scorsese. It also intervened in South Africa and in Namibia alongside extreme right-wing and pro-apartheid groups. In the United States, its representative was none other than Paul Weyrich, the conservative activist and a founding member of the religious right who pioneered the direct-mail technique of political lobbying that was hugely successful, paving the way for the campaign conducted by Avenir de la culture against the CUS. However, doubtless because of its extremism, Avenir de la culture was superseded in its opposition to PaCS by the more presentable, and thus more efficient, Générations anti-PaCS collective.

Anti-PaCS Demonstrations
Générations anti-PaCS was built up over the course of numerous demonstrations through alliances formed by a growing number of large conservative associations opposed to the bill. Initially led by the AFC, the anti-PaCS offensive resonated with the UNAF (Union nationale des associations familiales [National Union of Family Associations]), which was mostly made up of conservative Catholic groups. The AFC confederation organized what it called a “marriage operation” with three other pro-family groups which would become part of the pro-marriage, anti-PaCS collective: the Familles de France, Associations familiales protestantes (Associations of Protestant Families), and Union des familles musulmanes (Union of Muslim Families). Together, but mainly under the influence of the AFC, these associations invited their sympathizers to go to their city halls and sign a symbolic registry in which they would declare “their attachment to the commitments made during marriage” and “demand that government not extend the specific rights of marriage to other forms of cohabitation.” The AFC confederation behind this “marriage operation” soon claimed to have collected tens of thousands of signatures; it owed this success in part to the Alliance pour les droits de la vie (Alliance for the Rights of Life), the umbrella organization for conservative, religious-right politician’s Christine
Boutin
’s para-parliamentary pro-life activities since 1995. Meanwhile, the number of anti-PaCS demonstrations increased through to October 9, 1998, the date of the first debates on the proposal in the National Assembly; however, most of these met with little success. The first demonstrations to have had some effect occurred on October 3. Following a call to arms by the four main family associations who had coordinated the “marriage operation,” protests were simultaneously organized in fifty cities. It was the first official action taken by the Collectif pour le mariage et contre le PaCS (Collective for Marriage and Against PaCS), or CMCP. In some cities, the demonstrations encountered opposition from antifascist activists from Ras l’front (Enough of the Front), CNT union anarchists (Conféderation nationale de travail; [National Work Confederation]) and gay and lesbian associations. In the town of Ille-et-Vilaine, thirty demonstrators came to blows. But everything changed as the parliamentary debates began and other groups opposed to PaCS came onto the scene, inclined to engage in less militant forms of protest.

The opening debates on October 9 marked a turning point in the methods used to mobilize anti-PaCS protests. While the debates were stopped for a breakfast break, several hundred PaCS opponents loudly demonstrated outside the Palais Bourbon. Surprisingly, with the exception of a few Members of Parliament who joined them, the demonstrators were mostly youths, dancing to the rhythm of techno beats, all wearing green and orange T-shirts; unusual for a demonstration with such reactionary objectives. However, their appearance was only skin-deep: backed by rather aggressive security, the protest organizers only allowed those people who appealed to them to join the demonstration. Nonetheless, amid the protesters, the chorus of the song “I Will Survive” could be heard. Certainly, the 1970s disco hit is often used as the theme song of the LGBT Pride movement, but very few people know that it was also the theme of a new, self-proclaimed youth movement called Survivants, made up of youths born after the passing of the 1975 “Veil Bill” (which allowed for access to abortion), and who considered themselves “abortion survivors.” Despite this group’s sad motivation, its appearance at the October 9 demonstration revealed the inventiveness that the anti-PaCS initiative felt was needed to reinvigorate its course of action. From that moment on, every pro-family association mobilized in preparation for the next major protest on November 7.

On that day, while debates in the French National Assembly continued, thousands of anti-PaCS militants demonstrated outside. Their ranks had grown with the addition of other associations that had joined the CMCP, such as the Rassemblement pour les mères au foyer (Gathering for Mothers of the Hearth), the Comité évangélique protestant pour la dignité humaine (Evangelical Protestant Committee for Human Dignity), the Coordination étudiante contre le PaCS (Organization of Students Against PaCS), Enfance et sécurité (Childhood and Security), Collectif des maires de France pour le mariage républicain (Collective of French Mayors for Republican Marriage), and the Mouvement mondial des mères (World Movement of Mothers). The number of protesters was estimated at between 40,000 and 50,000. Like the October 9 protest, the march was colorful and lively; demonstrators at times danced to amusing beats (like the Macarena), at other times to old standards. The protest also had inspired elements meant to prove the “modernism” and imagination of the new moral order; at the head of the parade was a fluorescent-colored float carrying a couple dressed as newlyweds. And the slogans on the placards were just as gaudy: “PaCS Out,” “2 Daddies, 2 Mommies, What a Mess,” “PaCS in November, Adoption in December,” “6 Billion for PaCS: Who Will Foot the Bill?,” “PaCS and BUST,” “Oh PaCS, Oh Despair, Oh Misguided Youth,” even “PS = PD” (Parti socialiste = Fags). When interviewed, a female protester stated, “Whether my hairdresser is gay or not is none of my business; it needs to remain a private affair.” And asked about the fate of children raised by homosexuals, a demonstrator opined that “these children will have a lot of problems” and that “they will need to see a
psychiatrist
as soon as possible.” Another stated: “Sometimes, in gay couples, it’s possible for one of them to be very effeminate—possibly due to a
genetic
disorder—so that he could play the role of the mother. It’s better than nothing….” Among other comments recorded by media: “Put the fags in
prison
!” “Would you like to be raised by a couple
against
nature
?” and “Fags are [the work of] Satan! They’re evil! They need to be fought!” The march ended up at Place Vauban, where protesters called out to every parliamentary opposition member in attendance, including future French president Nicolas Sarkozy, as well as their biggest political ally, Christine Boutin, for whom they shouted, “Chris-tine! Chris-tine!” The press was surprised by the moral order’s new look. Quoted in
Libération
, a passerby admits that he was confused; “I thought they were demonstrating in favor of PaCS.” For its part, the commentary in
Le Figaro
was ecstatic: “Young, in vogue: the anti-PaCS demonstration surprised adversaries and partisans alike.” Nevertheless, another national demonstration was in the works.