The PACS 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.
In passing the law without making it specific to gays, however, France distinguished itself from other European countries that have approved civil unions or even marriage for same-sex couples. 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. For every two marriages in France, a PACS is celebrated, the statistics show, making a total of half a million PACSed couples, and the number is rising steadily.
Yves Padovani, chief clerk at the Marseille court, said couples stream through his office every day at half-hour intervals and make appointments three months in advance to get a slot. Perhaps more important as an indication of how French people live, the 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.
So it wasn't the gays that killed marriage after all. Funny that.
This points to a cultural breakdown that may actually end up being liberating. The old conception of marriage -- life-long, monogamous, church-sanctioned -- was of another time (and still works for some people), but as a model for everyone it's drastically at odds with any number of cultural and social fractures that have occurred since.
What this brings up of course, is the question of why governments should be in the business of recognizing marriages in the first place, especially in increasingly pluralistic societies where there's a huge array of differences about what that word means. It should be readily apparent by just about any measure that many people end up round pegs forced into square holes, with some pretty nasty social consequences.
Inadvertently, then, the French may be onto something here. What if governments simply recognized "personal unions" for everyone: gay, straight, bi, platonic, etc. who basically decided they wanted to share certain legal rights with each other? There could easily be a sliding scale of commitment, legal bondage (hehe) and rules for providing for children, depending on what the people involved agreed to. It would be equal for everyone.
This would also leave messy social debates about the meaning of "marriage" where they belong: with individuals, to decide by whatever their personal creed may be and far, far away from the halls of power.
Comments