Straight Couples in France Are Choosing Civil Unions Meant for Gays

In what is likely an unexpected consequence, in France heterosexual couples are increasingly opting for civil unions originally designed for gays rather than traditional marriage. While most of the states in the USA afford same sex couples no legal recognition - Virginia even tried to invalidate contracts between gay and lesbian couples - in those states that decide to opt for a civil union approach perhaps should realize that by ding so they may be undermining marriage more that us gays could ever do. A case of killing the institution while trying to save it. Here are some highlights from the Washington Post on the phenomenon in France:

*

The PACS [Civil Solidarity Pact] was introduced a decade ago by France's then-Socialist Party government. Parliament approved the measure only after a fierce debate because, although its wording was deliberately ambiguous, the arrangement was understood mainly as a way for gay couples to legalize their unions even though under French law they are not allowed to marry.

*

As a result of that ambiguity, the PACS broadened into an increasingly popular third option for heterosexual couples, who readily cite its appeal: It has the air of social independence associated with the time-honored arrangement that the French call the "free union" but with major financial and other advantages. It is also far easier to get out of than marriage. The number of PACS celebrated in France, both gay and heterosexual unions, has grown from 6,000 in its first year of operation in 1999 to more than 140,000 in 2008, according to official statistics.

*

[T]he number of heterosexual men and women entering into a PACS agreement has grown from 42 percent of the total initially to 92 percent last year. That was not what conservative opponents of the measure foresaw in 1999. They viewed it as an encouragement of homosexuality and organized rallies to denounce the Socialists for undermining morality in France.

*

But PACS unions are also seen as more appealing than marriage because they can be dissolved without costly divorce procedures. If one or both of the partners declares in writing to the court that he or she wants out, the PACS is ended, with neither partner having claim to the other's property or to alimony.

*

As I said, the irony is that those who wanted to "protect marriage" and deny gays from marrying have unwittingly created a tool that has perhaps significantly reduced the number of traditional marriages. As Andrew Sullivan notes, the Christianists may ultimately be the biggest threat to marriage:

*

In this, the gay movement, in its support for civil marriage equality, is a force right now for social conservatism; and the Christianist movement is the one fomenting the real attack on the institution of marriage. Christianist doctrine - unrelated to the social facts of our time - is, in fact, a social solvent. It helps destroy the family (ask the Haggards); it undermines civil marriage's uniqueness; and it discourages social responsibility. That's because it is about maintaining the stigma toward homosexuality rather than about supporting the important social role of marriage in keeping society together. As I have said many times, Christianism is not, properly understood, a force for social conservatism; it is a force for denial, religious neurosis and social decay.