AIX-EN-PROVENCE, FRANCE – Fewer topics elicit a more polarizing response than “gay marriage.” A political wedge issue, referendums concerning the legality of homosexual partnerships have been a go-to tool for conservatives seeking to corral voters and shore up political support. At one point in his presidency, George W. Bush thought a highly pressing matter on the nation’s agenda was to introduce a Constitutional ban on the practice. Nevermind that using the Constitution for such a task is inappropriate or that Bush is allegedly a conservative who favors state’s rights and individual liberty.Of course, Bush’s ambitious plan never came to fruition, although it conveniently dominated much of the discussion during his re-election campaign. It also partly inspired states like Louisiana to address the issue on their own.It seems two types of people oppose gay marriage. There are those who oppose it based upon their belief that the institution of marriage will be corrupted and those who simply despise gay people and their lifestyle.The term “sanctity of marriage” has been the battle cry of the anti-gay marriage movement — that gays engaging in marriage will diminish the value of the institution.But when religious arguments are used to “protect” marriage, opponents simultaneously prove a point: Our government is recognizing a religious institution, not merely a social arrangement.”Secular progressives” (to borrow the term from Bill O’Reilly) would agree the real solution is to change the law — strike marriage from the books and view all domestic partnerships as “civil unions.”Straight people can keep calling it marriage, and gay people will just have to come up with another term.Now, if you still object to the idea of gay partners being recognized legally by the government, you fall into the second category of gay marriage opponents. You are in the tent that detests gays and their lifestyle and subsequently wish to exert your influence over them.You’re in the ranks of King George, Hitler and Darth Vader – not because you disagree with their choices, but because you wish to limit their freedoms.You can stop reading now.For those rational individuals who recognize the need to respect tradition and religious views while still affording fellow Americans with equal liberties, there’s an interesting example of a system which has come to the service of gays and straights alike.France also once grappled with the tricky issue of affording gays equal rights while respecting traditional values. The “pacte civil de solidarité,” or PACS, was introduced in 1999 as the solution – giving gay couples similar benefits including lower taxes and easier estate succession.But unlike legislation passed by their European colleagues, French legislators didn’t specify it was intended for gays. They left the language intentionally ambiguous.As a result, PACS have been options for gay and heterosexual couples alike. Described as being in limbo between sharing a residence and being married, the option has attracted many because of its flexibility. It’s also easier to end than marriage while providing similar benefits.When the legislation was first introduced, 42 percent of couples entering PACS were heterosexual. In 2008, that figure ballooned to 92 percent.Clearly the PACS model is an attractive approach to handling the complex issue of equal rights for gays, although they are still limited in some respects.  The increasing popularity of PACS among straight individuals also shows that people — in France at least — do not feel the value of their partnerships is diminished by others’ decisions.In fact, a growing trend among straight couples is to perform marriage-like ceremonies after the completion of their PACS. So while they receive the same official recognition as their gay counterparts, the decision on how they will constitute their marriage in a social and religious context is left up to them.And that’s the way it should be. The rites of domestic partnerships divorced from the liberties afforded by the government.
 
 
 
—-Contact Mark Mark Macmurdo at [email protected]