French expierence with Civil Unions

[JackLuis]

In France, Civil Unions Gain Favor Over Marriage

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/12/16/world/16france_337-span/FRANCE-articleInline.jpg

So what happened when France allowed Civil Union?

When France created its system of civil unions in 1999, it was heralded as a revolution in gay rights, a relationship almost like marriage, but not quite. No one, though, anticipated how many couples would make use of the new law. Nor was it predicted that by 2009, the overwhelming majority of civil unions would be between straight couples.

Wow!

France recognizes only “citizens,” and the country’s legal principles hold that special rights should not be accorded to particular groups or ethnicities. So civil unions, which confer most of the tax benefits and legal protections of marriage, were made available to everyone. (Marriage, on the other hand, remains restricted to heterosexuals.) But the attractiveness of civil unions to heterosexual couples was evident from the start. In 2000, just one year after the passage of the law, more than 75 percent of civil unions were signed between heterosexual couples. That trend has only strengthened since then: of the 173,045 civil unions signed in 2009, 95 percent were between heterosexual couples.

An eccentricity of the French legal system?

As with traditional marriages, civil unions allow couples to file joint tax returns, exempt spouses from inheritance taxes, permit partners to share insurance policies, ease access to residency permits for foreigners and make partners responsible for each other’s debts. Concluding a civil union requires little more than a single appearance before a judicial official, and ending one is even easier.

It long ago became common here to speak of “getting PACSed” (se pacser, in French). More recently, wedding fairs have been renamed to include the PACS, department stores now offer PACS gift registries and travel agencies offer PACS honeymoon packages.

Even the Roman Catholic Church, which initially condemned the partnerships as a threat to the institution of marriage, has relented; the National Confederation of Catholic Family Associations now says civil unions do not pose “a real threat.”

It seems the hysteria of the Gay Marriage issue might be solved by making it into a tax code change, a way of getting the Government out of our personal lives?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Getting married is very difficult in France, entailing stacks and stacks of paperwork and details of each person;s family history, something about "proof of celibacy" and all kinds of wierd shit.

My stepdaughter planned to marry a French man. They went ahead and got her knocked up-- the baby was very nearly born out of wedlock, and only the man's mother, interceding with the town mayor, got the job done in time.

Getting divorced from the guy took three years.

In contrast,

Concluding a civil union requires little more than a single appearance before a judicial official, and ending one is even easier.

 

[JackLuis]

I sense a plot bunny,

if Civil Union were considered a contractual obligation rather than "Sanctioned by God", like marriage, then would it not be possible to have more than one civil union?

And would it not be possible for lesbian couples to form a union with a man with the object of procreation?

and would that not also extend to the man having more that one "arrangement" with many Couples and ends up becoming a "kept" man which is granted a new form of Civil rights, because of their dedication to promoting the propagation of Lesbians!

A little rough?

 

[3113]

I think gays should argue that letting Heteros have them is a threat to the institution of civil unions

 

[ishtat]

The French constitution helped getting practical laws in place. Firstly France is officially secular, one of only two such countries in Europe (the other being Turkey). Thus many of the usual impediments which had their origins in Canon(church) law or tradition were just not there and given a requirement to treat all citizens equally the changes required were minimal.

France also has a strong tradition of anti-clericalism going back to the third republic (1870-1940) and the revolutionary era.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think you can only enter into one civil union at a time, Jack Louis. You have to dissolve one before you start the next.

 

[JackLuis]

I think you can only enter into one civil union at a time, Jack Louis. You have to dissolve one before you start the next.

Yeah maybe you do, but in my world .... Ha!

 

[Boxlicker101]

The French constitution helped getting practical laws in place. Firstly France is officially secular, one of only two such countries in Europe (the other being Turkey). Thus many of the usual impediments which had their origins in Canon(church) law or tradition were just not there and given a requirement to treat all citizens equally the changes required were minimal.

France also has a strong tradition of anti-clericalism going back to the third republic (1870-1940) and the revolutionary era.

Turkey is not in Europe. At least, most of it isn't.

There are civil unions between straights in CA too. I have never been involved in one, but my youngest daughter was, until she married the guy. It provides many of the advantages of marriage, but not as many of the drawbacks.

 

[ishtat]

Turkey is not in Europe. At least, most of it isn't.

Europe is an idea rather than a place Box. For example the Ancient Greeks, generally are considered one of the foundations of European culture and yet they were at the time the dominant people of Western Anatolia. You will also be aware that it was only in the 1920's that the Greek population was evicted from Anatole (which is of course also a European, Greek word)

Incidentally the whole of Turkey lies to the west of Europe as it is conventionally defined.

 

[TE999]

Civil Unions sound like a common sense solution to the whole issue of who's allowed to be recognized as 'married' on this side of the pond.

It's really a matter of equal and legal rights rather than the ecclesiastic sanction of a 'marriage' anyway. The tangling of the two should be contested as a matter of the separation of church and state. The state should be able to convey legal rights to anyone who wishes to effect a Civil Union and leave the religion out of it.

Society will not collapse if Gay's and Lesbian's marry; that entire argument is fallacious.

 

[3113]

Civil Unions sound like a common sense solution to the whole issue of who's allowed to be recognized as 'married' on this side of the pond.

It wouldn't solve the problem in the U.S. if only because it's so clearly a "separate-but-equal" way of "solving" the problem. If Civil Unions have exactly the legal power as marriage in the U.S. (witch they don't) then why argue against gays getting married? If it's the same thing, why stop gays from marrying--or give the two different names?

If they are different, however, then you're saying that gays and lesbians are "unequal" to straights and haven't the right to what straights have.

Society will not collapse if Gay's and Lesbian's marry; that entire argument is fallacious.

It's always funny to me when I hear such arguments. I mean, it sure gives gays and lesbians a lot of magical power if they could make society collapse just by marrying.

 

[TE999]

It wouldn't solve the problem in the U.S. if only because it's so clearly a "separate-but-equal" way of "solving" the problem. If Civil Unions have exactly the legal power as marriage in the U.S. (witch they don't) then why argue against gays getting married? If it's the same thing, why stop gays from marrying--or give the two different names?

If they are different, however, then you're saying that gays and lesbians are "unequal" to straights and haven't the right to what straights have.

So what you're pushing for is a matter of societal acceptance of Gays and Lesbians marrying rather than settling the legal issues which is really the crux of the problem from a practical standpoint. Dream on, sis. Ain't gonna happen.

Half a loaf is better than none.

 

[3113]

So what you're pushing for is a matter of societal acceptance of Gays and Lesbians marrying rather than settling the legal issues which is really the crux of the problem from a practical standpoint. Dream on, sis. Ain't gonna happen.

Half a loaf is better than none.

I'm not pushing social acceptance of gays and lesbians marrying. I'm pushing for gays and lesbians marrying even if society doesn't accept it. Society didn't accept integration, but it happened. It happened because separate-but-equal was illegal.

Now society does accept it. But I really could give fuck-all if society at large accept gays and lesbians marrying.

As for the practical standpoint, if ALL marriages are, by legal definition, "civil unions" and the word "marriage" vanishes from the government issued license, I'm fine with that, too. If the word "marriage" only applies to a religious ceremony that is only legally binding within a religious community. In that instance, those who want to keep marriage "scared" can say it belongs only to them, like their particular brand of baptism. And they can decide who belongs to their club, and they can maintain the fiction that only their members are "married" (just as they maintain the fiction that only their members are "baptized" or going to heaven), etc.

They can ignore the fact that gays are getting married at churches that allow it, and they can ignore the fact that gays are calling their partners "husband/wives" just like the heteros are. They can pretend marriage is only for them if it makes them happy--so long as the government recognizes only a "civil union" license for everyone.

But so long as the U.S. calls it "marriage" when it's just a license and legal ceremony that anyone (religious or non-religous) can enter into, then I have a problem with it, especially if "marriage" has perks that civil unions do not.

And sure, a half-a-loaf is better than none. I'm sure blacks in bad schools were happy for the public education however inferior it was to the what the whites were getting. But no one should be satisfied with that half-loaf if they're entitled, by the laws of the land, to a whole one. They can be happy for having half rather than none, but it doesn't mean they--or we--shouldn't fight for what is rightfully theirs.

So, yes, thank you, I will dream on. There are places already in the U.S. where gays can marry. It is happening and society is accepting it. Which would seem to prove that it's only a "dream" if we believe that's all it can be and refuse to fight to make it a reality.

 

[JackLuis]

"To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe..

Persistence wins every time.

 

[TE999]

But so long as the U.S. calls it "marriage" when it's just a license and legal ceremony that anyone (religious or non-religious) can enter into, then I have a problem with it, especially if "marriage" has perks that civil unions do not.

So if 'marriage' and 'civil union' have the same legal and beneficial standing, why does it matter what two people living together is called? Semantics don't feed the bulldog and zealotry doesn't either.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The Cub and his girlfriend have a civil union. That still makes her my daughter-in-law as far as I'm concerned.

 

[xssve]

"Marriage" was originally a metallurgical term, "the union of two dissimilar metals", an alloy - the unions between people were more commonly called "troths", a pledge essentially, from whence we get, "trothed" and "betrothed".

 

[xssve]

In short, TE999, your argument appears to be a semantic one, "marriage", as defined by the Catholic Church, was probably borrowed from metallurgical jargon, i.e., whereas vows can be broken, "marriage" implies a permanent union, "till death do you part", and indeed, it was not easy to obtain a Catholic divorce, impossible in fact - a marriage had to be "annulled", essentially, nullified, as if it had never existed - an while a man could obtain an annulment from an unfaithful wife, the converse was not true for women, who could usually only obtain an annulment for desertion, after a waiting period, usually Seven years, I believe, or death of her spouse.

In short, what you refer to as generic marriage, is more akin to what is called a contract marriage nowadays, and it basically mandates some sort of intervention before a divorce can be granted, counseling, mediation, etc., whereas common marriage, in praxis, is closer to a civil union in nature already.

If however, "incorporation" sounds less than romantic to your ears, and the Christian reactionaries want to monopolize the word "marriage", I suggest resurrecting "troth", I don't think there's a copyright on that one.

 

[Stella_Omega]

So what you're pushing for is a matter of societal acceptance of Gays and Lesbians marrying rather than settling the legal issues which is really the crux of the problem from a practical standpoint. Dream on, sis. Ain't gonna happen.

Half a loaf is better than none.

Yes, because marriage and partnership is recognised by the rest of the community. That's why hets on out-of-town jaunts take off their societally accepted gold bands before stepping into the singles bars.

I think we should rename ALL civil marriages, retroactively, as civil unions. Let marriages that have been performed inside a religion be called "religious marriages." You want to be married? jump through whatever hoops your pontiff decrees. You don't get to pat yourself on the back after stepping in front of a justice of the peace.

In fact a number of churches have performed gay marriage ceremonies. although those marriages don't get legal standing, gay men are right now being married before the eyes of God.

Even in Texas.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yes, because marriage and partnership is recognised by the rest of the community. That's why hets on out-of-town jaunts take off their societally accepted gold bands before stepping into the singles bars.

I think we should rename ALL civil marriages, retroactively, as civil unions. Let marriages that have been performed inside a religion be called "religious marriages." You want to be married? jump through whatever hoops your pontiff decrees. You don't get to pat yourself on the back after stepping in front of a justice of the peace.

In fact a number of churches have performed gay marriage ceremonies. although those marriages don't get legal standing, gay men are right now being married before the eyes of God.

Even in Texas.

I often hear or read religious fundies saying things such as: "I am doing God's work." or "I do what God wants." or "It is the will of Allah." or similar things. I ignore such statements because, assuming there is a living Deity, nobody knows what It wants. Therefore, I am surp[rised to read you saying essentially the same thing.

I agree with your stance on same sex marriage, BTW. I am just surprised to read you saying it that way.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I often hear or read religious fundies saying things such as: "I am doing God's work." or "I do what God wants." or "It is the will of Allah." or similar things. I ignore such statements because, assuming there is a living Deity, nobody knows what It wants. Therefore, I am surp[rised to read you saying essentially the same thing.

I agree with your stance on same sex marriage, BTW. I am just surprised to read you saying it that way.

That's because you have a hard time reading context, Box. You just skim right past every little nuance that isn't made utterly explicit.

I don't feel like doing your reading comprehension tasks today, sorry. But here's a hint-- I have stated that I am an atheist about five hundred seventy-two times, in this forum. That's a rough guess. You must have read that statement once or twice though. There's a lot that goes along with being an atheist, one of which is not giving a fuck about what any religion thinks its "living deity" wants.

On the other hand I don't deny that the religions themselves want their "living deity" to want certain things, and that's what I'm addressing in my post.

I hope that's simple enough for you -- though I doubt it.