The French , realistic about sex and about families and unions, created PACS in 1999. The acronym is from the French for 'civil agreement establishing solidarity'[Pacte Civil de Solidarite] This is an officially recognised state of union for both mixed and same sex couples.

It would not satisfy gays who want a true marriage equal in every legal respect to a heterosexual one but it goes a good way to addressing the problems of partners in such unions.

The couple sign a declaration that they wish to be regarded as a union and this is registered. It gives them much the same rights and responsibilities as the law provides for married couples; so they are each liable for domestic debts, they are deemed to own furniture jointly and so on. It goes beyond the trivial though. After three years together they have a common fiscal regime. If one, exceptionally, is not already covered by the social security system then he or she is included in the partner's coverage. So, once the couple are 'pacsed' they have a status in law between living together (which the French call 'concubinage' ) and marriage. Marriage in France is itself a civil matter; no religious ceremony gives any marital status in French law. Here the state is regulating and protecting those who have an antipathy to marriage or do not feel ready for it; that seems a natural progression from civil marriage law. The formalities for ending the arrangement are straightforward. It can be done unilaterally.

Provisions for inheritance were under consideration when the law was passed;I can't help on details of the progress though. French law has a basic rule (viz. 'Whatever the deceased has written his kids get first claim on the money; the widow gets what's left' ). How this is adapted for a case of a pair who did not have married status is not obvious.They cannot adopt children, not being married; what children they do have together are likely to gain under similar provisions; but beyond that would be speculation.

They cannot gain French citizenship through the arrangement; that really would be inviting difficulties .

Would this simple provision go any way towards satisfying gay and hetrosexual couples (some of the latter suffer great injustice from not having that 'bit of paper' the marriage certificate ) and, more importantly, calming present opponents to gay 'marriages' in the US ?

( Didn't Vermont consider such a provision as a proposal ? )

I have no pity for those who have the right to marry, choose not to be wed and then feel they are treated unjustly when they do not reap the benefits of marriage....Such a provision should be available those who lack the right to be wed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FredPuli:
( Didn't Vermont consider such a provision as a proposal ? )

---

More than considered, Fred. Vermont's civil unions are identical in the law to marriages, as far as the state is concerned. Of course, other states do not recognize them, and there are more national level laws (which are not included) concerning marriage than state level laws.

MrsS If I hear just one more woman, dewy eyed, say " We love one another. We have been together years. We don't need a piece of paper [the marriage certificate] to prove our love..." I think I shall throw a bucket of water over her ! A triumph for her stupidity and his cupidity , not Cupid, at worst, or for their ignorance, at best. If that's all it is, a piece of paper, like a shopping list , a postcard, a passport or Valentine's Day card why doesn't he 'lovingly' say 'Let's get that piece of paper" ?

Of course I'm all for marriage. So should they be. It may be no part of the duties of society to protect the innocent (or the gullible) but we do from time to time .

She has none of the legal rights conferred by that' bit of paper'; these extend from no claim on what would be 'matrimonial' property if they split, including their home unless it be owned in joint names, nor any right to maintenance (alimony) save for any children, to the tregedy of his dying without a will (she gets nothing as of right) or having made a will, perhaps written before he met her, which gives her nothing. If he has a wife even from long back that woman is the widow and has all widow's claims, including those under his life assurance. There are whole lists of other losses; they together amount to an injustice to her in many cases.

There is a legion of women, young and old, who think that cohabiting for many years is the same as a marriage, in the eyes of the law. They live in a 'fool's paradise'. Even Mick Jagger claimed that he was not legally married to Jerry Hall brcause of a technicality about the law in Bali. His lawyers knew the difference, well enough

This more than anything was what the French were aiming at; it's why the law applies to all couples; because at least it settles property questions which in other countries reveal no claim or claims only in equity which are difficult and uncertain.That at least is a start; it's not as 'threatening' as a marriage. It also serves to regulate cases where they option to marry does not exist, whatever the reason.

That's nice.

That's France.

I live in America.

As an American I want more - Tis my right.

quote:

---

MrsS If I hear just one more woman, dewy eyed, say " We love one another. We have been together years. We don't need a piece of paper [the marriage certificate] to prove our love..." I think I shall throw a bucket of water over her !

---

I so seldom laugh before my second cup of coffee! Thanks, Fred!