A decade ago, Jonathan Rauch wrote in "What's Wrong with 'Marriage LIte'?" that denying gays access to marriage was resulting in domestic partnerships and civil unions that were less than full marriage but often open to heterosexuals (so as not to be seen by the left as "discriminatory" and by the right as "legitimatizing homosexuality"). That worked to weaken, not strengthen, marriage as an institution. As Jon put it, "Being against gay marriage and being pro-marriage are not, as it turns out, the same thing."
Now the Washington Post reports that, in France, Straight Couples Are Choosing Civil Unions Meant for Gays, in large numbers. "The brief procedure of the Civil Solidarity Pact, or PACS in its French-language abbreviation" are being chosen over marriage by a growing number of French men and women as "a legal and social status, halfway between living together and marriage."
PACS offer the tax and many legal benefits of marriage but:
"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."
In other words, the couple never become a single legal and economic unit, and are far less bound than business partners.
Yet today, heterosexual couples entering into a PACS agreement has grown from 42 percent of the total initially to 92 percent last year. For every two marriages in France, a PACS is celebrated, and the number is rising steadily.
At the same time, the Post reports, "The social stigma once associated with having children outside marriage has largely disappeared.... More than half the babies in France, including those of PACSed couples, are born out of wedlock." Overall, "The relaxation of marriage-related social strictures marks a significant departure from long-established French family traditions."
Some would celebrate, declaring that marriage is an oppressive bourgeois institution. I think a more effective message is that gays want to strengthen marriage by joining it, not help to weaken it.
"Less than marriage" should, at most, be a way station for same-sex couples until society is ready to grant us marriage equality, not a permanent alternative used mostly by shacked-up straights to gain the benefits of marriage with few of the mutual responsibilities, and with no assumption of permanence.
13 Comments for “French ‘Marriage Lite’: Tr”
posted by TS on
I must disagree. You can’t change the culture. The Western world is currently going in an anti-marriage (and also anti-child rearing) direction. I doubt it will ever make it to any kind of polar extreme, but I for one am in favor of the era of do your thing. Marriage thrived on assumptions about family life that people assumed would never change, both on the span of lifetimes and on the span of millenia. The assumption: a man and a woman (attempting to append in the 21st century: + two consenting adults) are married for reasons of politics, economics, or pregnancy (appended in the 19th century + for love), the man wears the pants and the woman runs the household (overwritten in the 20th century + actually nope, do it however you want), and they stay together, making as many babies as they can (overwritten in the 20th century + never mind; little boogers are expensive as heck and annoying too!) before one of them dies (appended at the turn of the century + or they can’t make it work).
All the amendments have destabilized these assumptions. Now, instead of plagues, brutal wars, and governmental oppression to keep us miserable, we are drowning ourselves in choices that have the same effect.
You know, it’s interesting… sometimes, I think people in Europe aren’t overly worried about the Islamic invasion because they are wordlessly going over and over the question of whether freedom really makes them happy. Maybe it’s time for a heartier people to come conquer Western civilization- maybe that’s just how the dialectics of human civilization work. What I’ll wager they won’t realize is just how bad it will hurt. There might be reason to believe the changes that led to our era of do your thing haven’t really made us happier. But it’s perfectly clear that taking away our relatively newfound freedoms to get married or not, subscribe to any religion we like, make any civil statement, join the military or not, vote for officials, and yes, indulge our true sexual natures instead of merely mentally construct them out of our own identities, will be too painful to allow.
posted by Bobby on
“I think people in Europe aren’t overly worried about the Islamic invasion because they are wordlessly going over and over the question of whether freedom really makes them happy.”
—That’s not the reason. You see, to a progressive fanatic no minority can ever be capable of wrongdoing. So the europeans go on living watching their porn on TV, drinking their french wines, and smoking their pot, without thinking that Islam opposes all those things and more.
People made that same mistake with Hitler, back then Nazi Germany was rearming while the rest of Europe was disarming. Europe seems more concerned with not offending muslims than with preserving their own freedoms. This is what progressives due, they stiffle free speech, they attack people rather than arguments, they call you a racist rather than argue why your statemetns are wrong. Anyone who stands against radical Islam is likely to get villefied.
posted by TS on
Bobby, I agree that my suggestion may be far fetched. It may have more to do with a deeper psychological depression that I sometimes see descending on the Western world. Your suggestion is definitely the more immediate reason.
What I disagree with is your statements about progressives. “they stiffle free speech, they attack people rather than arguments, they call you a racist rather than argue why your statemetns are wrong.” You are describing a pattern of political behavior here that exists separately from any particular political ideology. I happen to know all kinds of people act like this, not just progressives, and I also happen to know progressives who don’t act like this.
posted by Bobby on
Hey TS,
Maybe there are crude people at both sides of the aisle, but my experience is that conservatives debate my arguments while progressives engage in personal attacks.
When Michael Moore gives a speech at a college, protestors hold signs against him. When Ann Coulter, Horowitz, O’reilly, or anyone else from the center or the right does the same, protestors get on stage, they throw things at her, she has to travel with a security team.
Here’s a recent example. A student took a speech class and decided to give a speech about his faith, no different than a muslim doing the same. However, the professor called him a fascist bastard. Read about it in The Los Angeles Times.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-speech16-2009feb16,0,6896300.story
posted by esurience on
“If marriage’s self-styled defenders continue to along the ABM [anything but marriage] path toward making wedlock just one of many ‘partnership choices’ (and not necessarily the most attractive), they will look back one day and wonder what they could possibly have been thinking when they undermined marriage in order to save it from homosexuals.” — Jonathon Rauch in “Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America”
Prophetic words.
posted by TS on
Bobby, I’d be willing to wager that as a conservative, you are more likely to have a civil debate with a fellow conservative and attract the ire of an impulsive progressive with no sense of civic tact.
Also, consider the fact that we are all bombarded with information every day. In order to deal with it all, we selectively focus on some of it and ignore the rest. Someone with your set of attitudes is more likely to be moved to notice and remember a compelling incident like the one you mentioned with the anti-religious professor.
Although I did read a very interesting book recently called “Liberal Fascism,” in which the author approximated an unbiased examination of whether fascist regimes have more traits of the left or the right. In the end though, he made the same mistake I say you’re making: being steered by your preconceptions. He missed the fact that a fascist is anti-freedom, not leftist or rightist. He does not regulate the economy to try to protect people from suffering or guarantee people their wants and needs- he regulates it to suit his own purposes. He does not regulate social morality on an extension of some principle- he regulates it to support his own power and control.
posted by Bobby on
Hey TS,
“I’d be willing to wager that as a conservative, you are more likely to have a civil debate with a fellow conservative and attract the ire of an impulsive progressive with no sense of civic tact.”
—Well, maybe that’s true, unless that conservative is an irrational homophobe with no sense of self-control, and I rarely meet those.
Moving on, I think communism and fascism are very close cousins. Hitler’s party was called “national socialist” for a reason. Hitler had no problem confiscating businesses and running the economy anyway he saw fit. He was also into big welfare programs.
“He missed the fact that a fascist is anti-freedom, not leftist or rightist. He does not regulate the economy to try to protect people from suffering or guarantee people their wants and needs- he regulates it to suit his own purposes. He does not regulate social morality on an extension of some principle- he regulates it to support his own power and control.”
It was Karl Marx who said that the road to hell was paved with good intentions. Does it really matter if the regulation of social morality is due to principles or power and control? It’s still fascism.
Check out this blog
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/
It’s full of examples of “good progressives” trying to regulate public health. Did you know some progressives want to take away fat children from their homes?
I’m telling you, individual freedom is eroding fast. Progressives shout “hate speech is not free speech,” schools celebrate diversity unless it’s Christian or conservative, and even talk radio isn’t safe anymore with the democrats wanting to push the so-called “fairness doctrine.”
And when Obama tells republicans not to listen to Rush Limbaugh, that’s beyond the pale. Imagine if Bush had told democrats not to listen to Keith Olberman, not to watch Fahrenheit 911. Are people so blind they only see bias when it happens to them?
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Bobby, I read that article about the student at LACC and his professor giving him a hard time regarding support of Prop. 8 in a speech. The student identified himself as Christian. Since that incident that same student has employed the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian advocate group.
Let’s look at something important, this student decided to do something that for all intents and purposes attacked gay people on EVERY level and directly affected the quality of their lives.
As a minority that has a legacy of discrimination and defamation and not just professional and social attacks, but physical ones.
Has this student tried to defend Jim Crow in the class of a black professor…I would say that said professor would be hard pressed to keep his cool, because Jim Crow was so destructive and threatening to so many lives.
Akin also to every discriminatory law and information fomented about gay people this student supports.
Many Christians don’t believe they should be restricted (and unprotected) in the way libel and slander are.
And some will tell you bald faced that man’s law can’t and shouldn’t trump, ‘God’s law’.
But in a heartbeat will invoke Constitutional privilege and it’s protections for their ‘free speech’ as long as they don’t REALLY have to pay a price or take responsibility for the consequences of what’s inflammatory and obviously DAMAGING to the very specific minority in question.
Indeed, the ADF spends ALL their time exclusively defending speech against homosexuality and NONE against all the OTHER Christian reprobations.
FAR be it for a Christian to attack heterosexuals who commit something against Biblical directives!
And FOTF and their umbrella organizations, is less invested in families, than they are in a campaign almost exclusively against gay people.
I’d have FAR more respect for these snivelers if they actually had the guts to take their lumps when their OWN speech burns them in the wildfires they set.
A teaching moment for this kid, learn that your words have power and that there is responsibility in those words when CONTEXT is important.
What, a Christian can’t LEARN something about that too?
When so many of them quit the business of EXCLUSIVELY targeting gay people, and comparing them to society’s worst uncivilized behavior, then they’d learn something also about the limits of TOLERATING defamation and that gay people shouldn’t be expected to accept it, nor let it go by without someone understanding that sometimes there IS little room left BUT anger in response.
posted by jimmy on
After reading the LA Times story, I wonder where the line of being offended and actually being harmed is. I think squelching speech can have really detrimental effects to constitutional liberty. Why not openly challenge the student with more speech rather that stifle him? I am left of center but I am not a fan of the notion of hate speech being labeled as such, and the drive to stifle it, regardless of where it is coming from. I may not like what’s being said, and if so, I am free to challenge it. If a student was giving a pro same-sex marriage speech, I assume he/she would have had no problem. When we start policing thought, we are crossing a line that is hard to uncross.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Let’s look at something important, this student decided to do something that for all intents and purposes attacked gay people on EVERY level and directly affected the quality of their lives.
Correction. This student read passages from the Bible and expressed his opinions on his faith, including his opposition to gay marriage.
The other fact is that Regan DuCasse is attempting to speak on behalf of gays and use them as her excuse to attack this person and to justify his professor’s behavior towards him.
This student’s actions did exactly nothing to attack me on any level or affect the quality of my life. And, as an actual gay person, I think I am far more qualified to assess the impact of this student’s statement on gay people than is a straight person who is a proven antireligious bigot and supporter of hate speech herself when it is directed at religious people — as is Regan DuCasse.
Stop hiding behind us, Regan, and go fight your own battles. If you want to practice antireligious bigotry, no one’s going to stop you; you’re just going to look like the foolish and prejudiced hatemonger you are. You need gay people to make your behavior publicly palatable; unfortunately, in the process, you smear all gay people.
posted by Bobby on
“Has this student tried to defend Jim Crow in the class of a black professor…I would say that said professor would be hard pressed to keep his cool, because Jim Crow was so destructive and threatening to so many lives.”
—Really? If that’s the case, why do I have to shut up when my office co-workers attack George W. Bush? Why do I have to keep quiet when my office celebrated Obama’s victory? I’m not a college professor, yet I have more self-control than that no good hack.
This wasn’t even a debate class, it was a speech class. You stand up and give a speech, then people evaluate you on your performance. The teacher isn’t supposed to call you a fascist nor tell the other students to leave.
Let me put it this way. How would you feel if a student giving a speech for gay marriaged was called a “disgusting sodomite?” How would you feel if the teacher wanted the students to exit the class to avoid hearing “pro-gay propaganda?”
A college is supposed to be an institution of learning. You shouldn’t be defending the professor, what he did was indefensible.
I don’t really care what that student believes, I want him to have as many rights as every other student. What happened was unaceptable, I’m glad he’s suing the school, I hope he wins, and I hope the teacher gets fired.
posted by Anonymous on
Even as a strong supporter for gay marriage (as editor of Update in San Diego, I was on board way before HRC or other national organizations), I find censorship disturbing. Without having seen the text of the speech mentioned in the LA Times article it is difficult to offer a real opionion; however, unless the speech contained “fighting words”, I’d have to argue that there is no justification for prior restraint.
Now, the teacher may have been upset by the opinions expressed by the student. But if they weren’t “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” then certainly they should be allowed in an institution of higher learning. And I still believe that someone who opposes gay marriage doesn’t injure me or inflict an immediate breach of the peace simply by stating the reasons he opposes it. He may offend me, but offensive speech is protected by the first amendment. And thank [insert the name of your deity here (so as not to incite anyone reading this)] it is. Most of what we say in defense of our equal rights is offensive to at least a significant minority of this country. We probably offend more people with our beliefs about equal rights than there are gay people in this country. So I am not the least bit interested in being the one to start the censorship ball rolling.
posted by Leland Traiman on
President Barack Obama has thrown the LGBT community a lifeline in our time of need and no one seems to be grasping for it.
After 31 same-sex marriage election defeats in 32 elections, with 45 of 50 states banning same-sex marriage, with 17 states banning civil unions & domestic partnerships our President, still, wants to grant us federal marriage equality. Yes, all 1,138 federal rights of marriage, including joint income tax returns, shared social security benefits and immigration rights.
The White House web site proclaims the President believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that all the federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in ?legally-recognized unions.?
This means that anyone in the eleven states & Washington D.C. that have same-sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnership could have full federal marital rights. If Congress words the legislation correctly, ?legally-recognized unions? may also mean that if you live in one of the other 39 states you could travel to Massachusetts and get married, or to Vermont to get a civil union, or to California, Washington or Oregon and sign up as registered domestic partners, and attain all the federal marital rights even if your home state does not grant you state marital rights.
However, there are two catches.
The first is that the federal government will not call these marital rights ?marriage.? Indeed, it appears the federal government will not call them anything. Rather, they will simply be recognizing any ?legally-recognized union,? whatever the state calls them, marriage, civil union or domestic partnership.
The second catch is that we need to work our butts off to help our President fulfill his promise.
Any president can only sign what Congress passes. We need to start lobbying Members of Congress to support the President?s pledge for federal marriage equality. This has been made more difficult with the passage of Prop 8 in California and anti-marriage propositions in Arizona and Florida. But our community has faced long odds before and prevailed. Prior to the marriage lawsuits which brought a tsunami of reactionary electoral defeats outlawing same-sex marriage, we had a strategy that was working. Working through legislative bodies, and not the courts, we successfully passed hundreds of domestic partnership and civil union policies, none of which have ever been directly reversed. Civil unions and domestic partnerships have only been reversed when they were included in anti-same-sex marriage laws. Indeed, the promoters of Prop 8 admitted that they did not try to overturn California?s domestic partnership because they knew they would lose.
Now President Obama has invited the LGBT community to work for federal marriage equality in the Congress of the United States. He wants us to help him fulfill his pledge to us. But President Obama cannot do this without our help. Equality California has said they want to repeal Prop 8 on the 2010 ballot. This is all well and good. But is this the best use of our time, money and energy at this juncture in our history? Is this the best time to focus on anything else when our new President has a mandate for change NOW?
Our President has thrown the LGBT community a lifeline in our hour of need. I hope we have the good sense to grab for it.