# In France, Civil Unions Gain Favor Over Marriage



## Big Don (Dec 24, 2010)

*In France, Civil Unions Gain Favor Over Marriage*

*By SCOTT SAYARE and MAÏA DE LA BAUME*

The New York Times EXCERPT:

December 15, 2010
               PARIS  Some are divorced   and disenchanted with marriage; others are  young couples ideologically opposed to marriage, but eager to lighten  their tax burdens. Many are lovers not quite ready for old-fashioned  matrimony.        
  Whatever their reasons, and they vary widely, French couples are  increasingly shunning traditional marriages and opting instead for civil  unions, to the point that there are now two civil unions for every  three marriages.        
  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.        
  It remains unclear whether the idea of a civil union, called a pacte  civil de solidarité, or PACS, has responded to a shift in social  attitudes or caused one. But it has proved remarkably well suited to  France and its particularities about marriage, divorce, religion and  taxes  and it can be dissolved with just a registered letter.        
  Were the generation of divorced parents, explained Maud Hugot, 32, an  aide at the Health Ministry who signed a PACS with her girlfriend,  Nathalie Mondot, 33, this year. Expressing a view that researchers say  is becoming commonplace among same-sex couples and heterosexuals alike,  she added, The notion of eternal marriage has grown obsolete.        
  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.        
  Its becoming more and more commonplace, said Laura Anicet, 24, a  student who signed a PACS last month with her 29-year-old boyfriend,  Cyril Reich. For me, before, the PACS was for homosexual couples.         
  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.
 END EXCERPT
Interesting idea. Being divorced I know I feel sense of stigma, as if it is solely my fault my marriage didn't work. Perhaps "Marriage lite" relieves some of that?


----------



## granfire (Dec 24, 2010)

Let's not kid ourselves, it's marriage...


----------



## Big Don (Dec 24, 2010)

granfire said:


> Let's not kid ourselves, it's marriage...


Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
       Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
       What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
       Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
       Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
       What's in a name? that which we call a rose
       By any other name would smell as sweet;
       So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
       Retain that dear perfection which he owes
       Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
       And for that name which is no part of thee
       Take all myself.


----------



## granfire (Dec 24, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
> Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
> What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
> Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
> ...



Are you trying to sweet talk me?


----------



## Big Don (Dec 24, 2010)

granfire said:


> Are you trying to sweet talk me?


Not me. But, your comment shoved that bit into my head.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 24, 2010)

Wanting it CALLED "Marriage" is about social normalization more than it's about equal treatment.


----------



## granfire (Dec 24, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Wanting it CALLED "Marriage" is about social normalization more than it's about equal treatment.




bill is rubbing off on you.....


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 24, 2010)

I think I probably have a few years on Bill.


----------



## billc (Dec 24, 2010)

Besides, there is an ointment you can get for that.


----------



## granfire (Dec 24, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Besides, there is an ointment you can get for that.


you really should put that eggnog down! 
:lfao:


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 25, 2010)

'Marriage' as a legal entity was invented by authorities so they could tax and control people. There has always been marriages, partnerships or whatever you want to call it between couples and there has always been ceremonies to declare or celibrate these unions. 
In France to be legally married it has to be officiated by the mayor in the town hall, weddings in church aren't recognised as being legal marriages so perhaps marriages in France to a certain extent have always been civil partnerships in that the civil authorities make the marriage and can break it for you, no religion or church can do that for you.


----------



## granfire (Dec 25, 2010)

well, marriage is an economic union to raise kids and provide for old age. Since we don't need that in this form anymore, what else is there.

It never was 'sacred' until the reformation, which is relatively recent. Many states in the US have 'common law marriages' on the law books: you live with your significant other together for a year you are legally married.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 26, 2010)

granfire said:


> well, marriage is an economic union to raise kids and provide for old age. Since we don't need that in this form anymore, what else is there.
> 
> It never was 'sacred' until the reformation, which is relatively recent. Many states in the US have 'common law marriages' on the law books: you live with your significant other together for a year you are legally married.


 

You used to be able to 'jump over the broomstick' to be married. In Wales this is known as Priodas coes ysgub/Priosdas coes ysgubell. In Breton it's bas-valann.  Common law marriages have been around for a very long while.Most often marriage ceremonies were considered bindingl as long as promises were made in front of witnesses, there was little more than that.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Dec 26, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> You used to be able to 'jump over the broomstick' to be married. In Wales this is known as Priodas coes ysgub/Priosdas coes ysgubell. In Breton it's bas-valann. Common law marriages have been around for a very long while.Most often marriage ceremonies were considered bindingl as long as promises were made in front of witnesses, there was little more than that.


 
That's really what a marriage is these days as well, you proclaim your love and intent before witnesses, in a civil service it's before a legal authority and family, in a religious service it's before a deity and family. 

So Tez, do the women bring their own transportation/brooms or does the state supply them??


----------



## granfire (Dec 26, 2010)

LOL, yeah, it would make things easier when the woman just brings her ride in for the ceremony! :lfao:


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 26, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> That's really what a marriage is these days as well, you proclaim your love and intent before witnesses, in a civil service it's before a legal authority and family, in a religious service it's before a deity and family.
> 
> So Tez, do the women bring their own transportation/brooms or does the state supply them??


 

Ah no transportation needed lol, the broom was outside the house, the woman kept the house and belonged to 'herself' not her husband, a big thing in past times.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Dec 26, 2010)

granfire said:


> well, marriage is an economic union to raise kids and provide for old age. Since we don't need that in this form anymore, what else is there.
> 
> It never was 'sacred' until the reformation, which is relatively recent. Many states in the US have 'common law marriages' on the law books: you live with your significant other together for a year you are legally married.


 
I thought it was soemthing like 7 years, and I thought it required for one party or both to be dependant on the other, so if two people liv ed together for that long, and carried seperate accounts and bills and each paid their own shares it would not be comsidered common law marriage?

I also happen to believe that Civil Unions is the way to go for anyone wanting to join together for any reason other then children. The only reason for marriage in my opinion should be to start a family and establish a bloodline for the kids. 
I know my opinion is the extreme minority, but it is what it is. I have never seen any reason for people who got married just because... regardless of whether it was homosexuals, straights who never want kids, people who just ant the economic benefits, or those who are simply in love and want to celebrate that love.. I am sure you could add dozens of other reasons. But alas, I still feel the only valid reason to get married is because two people are wanting to start a family and have kids.
I dont see a reason why civil unions, or even some other form of partnership can not be provided to any people who want to live together, share the burdon of advancing their lot in the world, and recieve some type of benefits from it... whether it be a straight couple, a homosexual couple, college friends wanting to help each other through their degrees, buddies wanting to share an apartment and have fun for a summer, or any other set of circumstances that would have 2 or more people living together and working together towards some common goal.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 26, 2010)

Call it what you want. The point is that gays want the exact same benifits as non-gays in that kind of relationship. The term 'marriage' is used throughout legislations to define those rights and privileges. It is far simpler, and cheaper, to change the legal definition of the term 'marriage' than to coind a different term and ammend every piece of legislation to include that term. Remember that this kind of change is not as simple as a find and replace function. Every piece of legislation would have to go through the proccess.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Dec 26, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Call it what you want. The point is that gays want the exact same benifits as non-gays in that kind of relationship. The term 'marriage' is used throughout legislations to define those rights and privileges. It is far simpler, and cheaper, to change the legal definition of the term 'marriage' than to coind a different term and ammend every piece of legislation to include that term. Remember that this kind of change is not as simple as a find and replace function. Every piece of legislation would have to go through the proccess.


 
So are you saying this is just the easier way to do something, or that its the right way to do something?


----------



## granfire (Dec 26, 2010)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I thought it was soemthing like 7 years, and I thought it required for one party or both to be dependant on the other, so if two people liv ed together for that long, and carried seperate accounts and bills and each paid their own shares it would not be comsidered common law marriage?
> 
> I also happen to believe that Civil Unions is the way to go for anyone wanting to join together for any reason other then children. *The only reason for marriage in my opinion should be to start a family and establish a bloodline for the kids. *
> I know my opinion is the extreme minority, but it is what it is. I have never seen any reason for people who got married just because... regardless of whether it was homosexuals, straights who never want kids, people who just ant the economic benefits, or those who are simply in love and want to celebrate that love.. I am sure you could add dozens of other reasons. But alas, I still feel the only valid reason to get married is because two people are wanting to start a family and have kids.
> I dont see a reason why civil unions, or even some other form of partnership can not be provided to any people who want to live together, share the burdon of advancing their lot in the world, and recieve some type of benefits from it... whether it be a straight couple, a homosexual couple, college friends wanting to help each other through their degrees, buddies wanting to share an apartment and have fun for a summer, or any other set of circumstances that would have 2 or more people living together and working together towards some common goal.



well, it's the guy's point of view. (predating DNA, getting married was the only way to ensure the kid was yours)

however, in these times kids are the least worries to get married over. Taxes, insurance, etc are much more important.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Dec 26, 2010)

granfire said:


> well, it's the guy's point of view. (predating DNA, getting married was the only way to ensure the kid was yours)
> 
> however, in these times kids are the least worries to get married over. Taxes, insurance, etc are much more important.


 
Nothing is more important then ones children, and every other aspect and benefit of marriage is and should be available through other means, I think it should be easier to establish these legal scenarios, but if you really think that money and that other crap is more important then children then you disgust me.


----------



## granfire (Dec 26, 2010)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Nothing is more important then ones children, and every other aspect and benefit of marriage is and should be available through other means, I think it should be easier to establish these legal scenarios, but if you really think that money and that other crap is more important then children then you disgust me.



You got this wrong this is not about how I feel about it. 
many couples these days choose not to have kids or are on there 2nd or 3rd try. 
Not to mention that marriage does not guarantee an intact family for the children for their lives - or childhoods.

What is left after you strip these things from the myth of family is the cold hard numbers. 

It stands: marriage/family is an economic unit! Blood lines were not important to other than royalty up until recent....


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 26, 2010)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> So are you saying this is just the easier way to do something, or that its the right way to do something?


 
Confering the exact same rights and advantages to gay couples is the right thing to do. The least costly/most efficient to acheive it is to change the one definition as opposed to a lot of laws. Not to mention that in the future, every piece of legislation that affects marriage would also have to mention 'civil union'.


----------



## David43515 (Dec 27, 2010)

granfire said:


> LOL, yeah, it would make things easier when the woman just brings her ride in for the ceremony! :lfao:


 
Snatched the joke right outta my mouth. I guess great minds think alike.


----------

