I doubt Romney drew his inspiration for his seven year French marriage crack from science fiction - more likely he was referring to the Pacte Civil de Solidarité PACS. Also see here. There's also a longish explanation of how PACS came to be here.
In short, the seven-year bit may have been a crack based upon the commonly used seven year itch. However, in dealing with the Gay marriage issue, France came up with an alternative which amounts to a contract between two individuals which has some, though not all of the ramifications of marriage. Chief among the issues raised, it is not necessarily permanent as marriage is considered to be, though we know that isn't true, either.
You can marry, or you can un-marry and the PACS has caught on with heterosexuals not just the homosexual community it was thought to best serve. One of the big complaints as the law came to be was the manner in which it would undermine traditional marriage. And indeed, critics suggest it seems to have done just that. I think that may have been Romney's larger point, but I have had no communication with his campaign on the issue.
Technically, PACS is not a form of marriage. It is a legal recognition of a couple in a stable relationship, which provides much the same recognition and rights as a marriage. The partners are taxed as a family unit, can take advantage of each other social security benefits and are treated as a family unit from the purpose of employment rights (e.g. time off for family matters). PACS is available both to people of different sexes and people of the same sex.
However, although the general intent of PACS is to provide the same rights as a married couple, in fact there are a number of differences. For example, they are not taxed as a family unit until three years after they signed the PACS contract. Also, inheritance tax allowances do not exactly match those available to those allowed to the surviving spouse of a traditional marriage. Likewise, PACS does not meet the criteria for adoption that the couple be married.
Despite these and other limitations, many couples (in particular, homosexual couples) have chosen to sign a PACS contract. Meanwhile, there is considerable discussion on modifying PACS to bring its rights and duties more in line with those provided by marriage.
Thus began the story of the PACS, which, between the first proposition of domestic partnership in 1990 to the final promulgation of the law in 1999, went through at least seven reformulations, as CUC (Contrat d'union civile), CVS (Contrat de vie sociale), CUS (Contrat d'union sociale), CUCS (Contrat d'union civile et sociale), PIC (Pacte d'interet commun), and finally, as the PACS. All of these proposals--successively debated, amended and modified by the National Assembly, the Senate, and the courts--differed in their particular definitions of "the couple," in the rights they encompassed, and in their practical modalities. One of the major points of contention, for instance, was whether civil unions should be registered in city halls (where civil marriages have been celebrated since the French Revolution), by the courts, or merely by notaries. While some argued that these civil unions should be open to any two people living together, including friends, roommates, or siblings, others suggested limiting them to sexual couples, others to same-sex couples only. Still others maintained that the new law should regulate exclusively the division of material goods without having any impact on civil rights and without affecting the civil code.
"One of the big complaints as the law came to be was the manner in which it would undermine traditional marriage. And indeed, critics suggest it seems to have done just that."
How ironic. It's not "gay marriage" that's destroying heterosexual marriage, but "gay half-assed replacement for marriage" that spoils the system.
Makes you think about Civil Unions in a completely different light.
Posted by: Zifnab | Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 04:27 PM