LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
2010 Webby Award Winner for Best Political Blog
 
May 26, 2012
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     gay marriage     barack obama     robert scheer     chris hedges     ndaa
Most Read

TED: 'A Money-Soaked Orgy of Self-Congratulatory Futurism'

Truthdiggers of the Week: 400,000 Canadians Launching the ‘Maple Spring’

Russia and Exxon Mobil Sign Arctic Oil Deal

I Can't Hear Myself Think

A Rare Admission That Money Trumps Everything Else

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
Why Bain Questions Matter
OSHA Struggles When Tower Climbers Die

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Better Than We Found It
The Good-Natured Dictator

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101

Truthdig Bazaar
One State, Two States

One State, Two States

By Benny Morris
$17.16

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Trendy French Straights Have Co-Opted Civil Unions

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   

Posted on Dec 16, 2010
Flickr / kikasso (CC-BY)

Last year 95 percent of France’s civil unions (known as pactes civil de solidarité) were signed by heterosexual couples, according to the New York Times. Apparently the French—and not just the gays for whom the process was conceived—have taken to the more relaxed unions that still offer many of the financial benefits of marriage.

New York Times:

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.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement


New and Improved Comments

We are launching a major overhaul of our comments section.

In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread.

Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts.

Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with.

Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page.

By Inherit The Wind, December 17, 2010 at 9:57 am Link to this comment

Of course, as the religious right takes over our country, you’ll get the reverse. Soon NOBODY will be able to get married without a priest, minister, rabbi or iman performing it.  “We gotta put GOD back in Marriage!” and JoPs, ships’ captains and others won’t even be able to do it.

Divorce will only be allowed if you are a wealthy donor or a celebrity.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 17, 2010 at 9:53 am Link to this comment

Caia:

You miss the point. If you want to get married as an atheist, all you’ll have to do is say “I’m married!”  That’s it!  The legality will be the civil union.

Rather than have the religious orders own our laws and legal system, they will be able to define what THEY consider a marriage and only those who follow their faith will have find that religion’s definition of “marriage” meaningful.  IT WILL HAVE NO LEGAL STANDING!

Report this

By caia, December 16, 2010 at 11:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Inherit the Wind: Why?  Why should we let religious groups own marriage?  Sure,
they’ve been pretending they do for decades, but marriage has always been a
matter of government.  That’s why they say things like, “By the power vested in me
by the State of New Jersey”—churches can’t marry anyone without state sanction.

I note you say “private institutions”—like what?  Universities?  Bowling leagues? 
I’m an atheist, and if I ever want to get married, I’ll want to get married,
not civil unioned.  The fact that I won’t want any religious officiant shouldn’t make
it any less a marriage.

I’m tired of constantly ceding ground to religious bigots just because they claim
it’s theirs.  Sure, it might make it easier, but they’re still bigots and they’re still
wrong.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 16, 2010 at 7:21 am Link to this comment

I’m a big believer that government shouldn’t have ANYTHING to do with “marriage”, only civil unions, which carry the same legal obligations and define the partners as spouses.

Let religious and private institutions determine what a “marriage” is, not the government.  Since most people are joined in a religious ceremony, they will still be “married”.  And, if those of a civil union want to call themselves married, whose business is it?

Report this
Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox


 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.