Any couple living together in a stable relationship in France now by law has most of the same rights as a married couple. Homosexuals particularly benefit from the new partnership contracts. As our Paris correspondent explains, the Catholic bishops in France are strongly opposed. (See leading article.) CONTROVERSY is raging in France over the partnership contracts which finally became law on 13 October. By the Pacte civil de solidarit? or Pacs, a new status is defined for non-married couples, heterosexual or homosexual, living together stably. Non-sexual partnerships or friendships are included, but not close blood relations. The two parties sign a contract with a view to organising their life in common which is registered by the clerk of a magistrate?s court. Greater material benefits result than for a common-law marriage, though they do not equal the advantages of an official marriage.

There were almost 10 years of parliamentary discussion, seven successive readings in the National Assembly and the Senate, and a marathon 106 hours of debate in Parliament before the final version was put before the MPs. The result is a hotchpotch which satisfies no one entirely. The Church was the first to complain. But gay and lesbian militants were not satisfied either, nor the defenders of traditional morality, nor those living together outside marriage.

The advantages conferred by the new contracts concern taxation, inheritance, housing, work, residence permits and social protection. But Pacs also implies certain duties. The partners promise mutual material aid to each other, and they are jointly responsible for any debts incurred for their domestic life or shared accommodation. The contract is terminated by the death or marriage of one of them. It can also be ended by a joint decision made by both, or by either.

A new definition of a common-law marriage will now be inserted into the Civil Code, extending it explicitly to include homosexual couples. This major reform in French civil law was intended to correct the current jurisprudence of the Appeals Court, which limits common-law marriage to heterosexual couples. The new definition reads: Common-law marriage is a de facto union, characterised by a communal life having both stability and continuity, between two persons of different or the same sex who live as a couple.

In September 1998, the French bishops published a highly critical assessment of the private Bill in favour of creating the Pacs, entitled A useless and dangerous law. Their declaration was not only a classical defence of the institution of marriage, but also a reasoned criticism of the philosophy implicit in the Pacs, which it branded an ersatz marriage. The bishops noted that the authors of the Bill denied that this was their intention. But, the bishops asked, How are we to believe them, when the new law would grant those who enter into this pact most of the rights inherent in marriage, rendering the latter obsolete? Marriage is not a simple contract or a private affair, they added, but one of the fundamental structures of society.

The bishops denied all accusations of homophobia. People in a singular, and often difficult, situation had to be welcomed and listened to, and the Catholic Church was not indifferent to any measure that would improve their lot in a just way. What the law should not do, however, was to give a social application to individual cases.

The bishops pointed out the danger of placing other unions on a par with marriage: Society has no duty to recognise all partnerships resulting from individual and private choice. . . . A relationship between two people of the same sex is not equivalent to that between a man and a woman. Their position was clear, they concluded: Existing laws offer sufficient solutions to the social and economic problems encountered by those who cannot or do not wish to marry.

After the adoption of the law, Archbishop Louis Bill? of Lyons, president of the episcopal conference, regretted its passage. Even those who were in favour of the new law, he added, admit that they see it merely as the first step towards something else, such as the possibility for homosexual couples to adopt children. As usual, the Protestants took a much more liberal view, favouring the Pacs as long as it is not seen as a marriage in disguise. The Jewish and Muslim authorities both took exception to the law as a threat to the sacred character of marriage.

Although many homosexuals are delighted, regarding the Pacs as a breakthrough in their fight for recognition, they are not entirely satisfied and see it as a simple, even timid, step forward in a continuing battle. For the more radical groups like Act Up, the victory is merely symbolic. Homosexuals don?t stand to gain much by the new law, said Act Up?s Parisian president, Emmanuelle Cosse. I don?t think many of our members will be tempted to sign a contract. The law has taken the worst aspects of marriage, like the pooling of earnings, without granting rights like the adoption of children to homosexuals. The choice of the magistrate?s court and not the mairie (where marriages are celebrated) for the signing of the contract is also seen as a slight. The defenders of traditional morality, by contrast, especially members of ultra-conservative Catholic movements, have given vent to their outrage. The conservative MP Christine Boutin, a pontifical consultant on the family and leader of the anti-Pacs faction in Parliament, held the stage non-stop for five hours, brandishing her bible. She did her cause more harm than good, however, especially among the younger members of her own party, by the extravagance of her remarks, describing extramarital sex as diabolical, free love as profoundly immoral and homosexuality as pathological.

Those who are content with a common-law marriage see the Pacs as an unnecessary rival. It offers greater advantages than they enjoy, and they fear that their legal position will become even more insecure, and their existing rights jeopardised. They have long resisted the argument that if you want rights you only have to get married, and they do not see why they should accept the new taunt: You only have to sign a Pacs! Their refusal to legalise their love is for them an unbending principle.

Family life and private morals have changed drastically in France, as in most European countries, over the last three decades. Abortion was legalised in the 1970s; homosexual intercourse ceased to be defined as a crime in 1971; and the difference in the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual relations was abolished in 1982. There has been a revolution in the concept of the couple, marriage and the family.

The results have often been positive, such as more freedom and tolerance, a greater equality of the sexes, less hypocrisy and moralising. Other effects are decidedly negative, such as the explosion of the divorce rate (one marriage in three is dissolved), single-parent poverty and isolation, promiscuity and unwanted pregnancies. One thing is certain: free love is here to stay. In France, an estimated five million people live together without marrying, and 40 per cent of children are born out of wedlock.

It is ironic that of all the institutions that make up society, marriage ? which is after all the basic building-block on which the national community is built ? should be treated as the poor relation of the juridical system. The temptation for politicians to pander to the lobbying of vocal minorities is strong, and often blinds them to the needs of the silent majority. Of course, the law has to keep in step with the evolution of public mores; laws are simply the rules a society gives itself to codify its way of life. It is also true that there existed a discrepancy between the legal norm and the growing number of couples who opted out of marriage, by choice or on account of their sexuality.

MARRIED couples, heterosexual unmarried couples, homosexual couples: these three different modes of belonging to society demand different treatment by the law. But the main weakness of the Pacs, which is nevertheless a positive step towards ending sexual discrimination, lies in its hybrid nature. In most countries where sexual minorities benefit from special legislation (for example, Germany and Switzerland), the homosexual couple is considered as such, and offered a specific contract outside of marriage. In France, it is as though the politicians were loath to face up to the challenge of homosexual couples frankly and to deal intelligently with the evolution of heterosexual unions. In treating both together, they have produced a mishmash of half measures and false solutions which will not only have effects opposite to those intended, but may well backfire on the legislators.

In fact, by legislating for couples who cannot or do not wish to marry, two categories juridically quite distinct, the MPs have created a situation of injustice. The equality of all citizens before the law cannot be based on sexual difference. Those who oppose the Pacs have seized upon this loophole. The Opposition has announced its intention to submit the new law to the Conseil constitutionnel (the body which interprets the constitution), on the grounds that it is discriminatory in fiscal matters and will lead to homosexuals being identified in official files. Mme Boutin has already threatened to refer the matter to the right-wing President Chirac. It may be some time before the new law takes effect.

Back to homepage