Marriage, the natural institution at the base of society, can only be heterosexual, “homosexuality is a private affair,” said Msgr. Anatrella, among other things. “Marriage is not a right.” “There is a social confusion between sex and feelings” and we are experiencing “a political manipulation” based on this psychological, moral and legal confusion. For the social psychiatrist, the French government took “a grave decision that transgresses the unchanged order of humanity.” There is a need, however, for “a more human and truer vision of politics,” which would bring peace instead of division and confusion. The majority of the French population is against this law that recognizes marriage between persons of the same sex, and these people “are not fascists, or homophobic, or thugs, or religious fundamentalists. They are citizens who demand respect for the great balances that structure the human family and filiation between a man and a woman.” “The law is often more in words and ideals than in the acts through which they are defended," says Msgr. Anatrella. And “to defend oneself against the dangers of the temptation to go from one extreme to another, policymakers must preserve lucidity and courage as well as fair and honest convictions.”

Erroneous laws, made in the name of supposed ideals of justice that lead instead to radical changes that generate injustice and are harmful to social equilibrium, trigger dangerous changes in the psychology of the weakest and in the structure of society itself. As a social psychiatrist, the prelate points out how “the most fragile personalities, with idiosyncratic tendencies, are destabilized by the errors, contradictions and pathologies of certain laws that alter even the symbolic order in which human sexuality is elaborated,” and the result is “social disintegration.” This kind of capitulation before a “lobby and restless minorities that impose a redefined model the family and of the parent-child relationship with no basis in reality, is unacceptable.” The distortions are firstly anthropological and then political. In the face of a law that if so obviously unjust conscientious objection is the only option.