Marriage for all means having a choice

For me, this bill on marriage for all is important because it would bring my couple into the legality . It would also protect my son because if anything happens to me, he will have to return with his father, who does not particularly want to take care of it. While his "second mom" would be quite ready to do it.

But we are afraid that it will still be a second-class marriage anyway. The bill does not go as far as one would like, particularly on the issue of the status of step-parent or medically assisted procreation. We want to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple, neither more nor less.

My partner would like to have the opportunity not to get married. This marriage for all is having a choice. There we do not have one.

For my part, I fight because marriage is for me something very framing, structuring. And because I'm a big romantic. I want to be able to say in front of everyone that I love her and that I want to live with her without any problem to anyone.

Before meeting her, I lived as a heterosexual couple for nine years. I did not get married because I knew it was wrong. A wonderful little boy is born. For me, marriage is a protective legal framework for the union and all the children that may arise from it or who were already born before. Yes, one in three marriages ends in divorce, but there are also all those marriages that last. My parents, for example, married for forty-two years.

But they will not come to my marriage: they will not endorse it. When I chose to assume my homosexuality, at age 37, after years of heterosexuality, they did not give me any sign of life for two years.

Regarding children, I would like all women who want to adopt or even conceive without the need to lie and hide. In my own couple, adoption would be a way to protect my partner's rights over my son. If we could, we would also like to adopt a little girl.

In my professional life, I know men who pretend to be single to get the right to adopt. It's hypocrisy! Children, we have them in one way or another. But what is really annoying is that we can not offer them the same protection as those of heterosexual couples.

The debate on same-sex parenting should not happen: we are able to raise our children as badly as a heterosexual couple.Perfect parents do not exist.

The identity reference is also a false question. My son has never been so bad in his life as when he was raised by a father and a mother. From the moment he found a home with a blooming mother - and two moms - he was much better in his skin.

Today he has two moms and a daddy and he is perfectly fine. What counts for a child is that he is loved for who he is and supported in his evolution. And it's not because our sexuality does not allow conception that we homosexuals do not have a lot of love to give.

Similarly, contrary to what we can hear about the disappearance, in homoparental families, of the third party who made it possible to conceive, we will never tell a child that he comes from two mothers. It's wrong. They can not be conceived otherwise than with male and female cells. But for all that, they can have two dads or two moms, as children do not have dads or moms.

From what I see around me, the biological father is never erased; neither can the mother, we can not! For example, my supervisor has adopted his child in Africa. With his companion, they return there every year to see his mother. They talk about it, it is not at all erased.

For me, it was also essential that my son continue to see his father, I fought long for that. He needs it for its construction. After their relations were stormy but he was able to confront this father. And now, it's better.


Leave Your Comment