On November 13, 1999, the French Parliament passed a civil solidarity pact PaCS (Pacte Civil de Solidarité), which provides a legal structure for unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples.
After having put the PaCS on the political agenda due to pressure from public interest groups, the government and members of Parliament on the left continued to hinder its passage. This cowardliness on the part of the majority members has been notably manifested by their absence from the National Assembly when the law was first voted on October 9, 1998, as by their silence in the face of the homophobic outbursts[[During the second reading in the Senate :
– Emmanuel Hamel (RPR) offered an amendment to rename the PaCS » Pact for AIDS Contamination « ,
– François Abadie (Radical) argued that » normal citizens don’t have to pay for queers « ,
– Bernard Seillier (independent) offered the view of the law as » a pathetic quest of homosexuals for marriage that would plunge the society into a worsening of the pathologies already perceptible by drugs, suicides … « .
These statements were in addition to those by Assembly members :
– Pierre Lellouche (RPR) who believed to see in the PaCS » a string pulled by a lobby, recaptured by the left parties « and advised the » sterilization of homosexual couples « .
– Dominique Dord (UDF) offered the proposal that » the Department of Veterinary Clinics be designated the place of signing « .
– Indignant that a legal text would take into consideration homosexual couples, Jacques Myard (RPR) expressed surprise that one does not legislate for bestiality and François Vannson (RPR), for animals.
– Christine Boutin maintained that » every civilization which had recognized and justified homosexuality as a normal way of life had experienced decadence « , and her friends, during the anti-PaCS demonstration on January 31, had stated that they were going to send » the queers to the stake « .]] by members of the Senate and the Assembly. Prime Minister Lionel Jospin preferred to be the guarantor of a « symbolic order » threatened by homosexual couples rather than respond to the right-wing attacks.
Today the PaCS, for which the urgency was created in the context of the AIDS epidemic, ignores for the most part the situation of persons affected by HIV. Persons with HIV or AIDS presently receive the Allowance for Handicapped Adults but now must in fact choose between the PaCS and receiving this allocation. Moreover, the text of the bill once again submits foreign partners to arbitrary decisions by the administration: they remain subject to being escorted over the border.
However, due to the action[[Actions taken by Act Up during the parliamentary debates on the passage of the PaCS :
– October 17, 1998 : demonstration and press conference to denounce the absence of members of the various left wing parties from vote on the PaCS in the National Assembly.
– January 31, 1999 : early morning wake up of Christine Boutin, UDF member of Parliament, ultra-Catholic and homophobe.
– January 31 : unfolding of Homophobes banner upon the arrival of the anti-PaCS demonstration.
– March 1999 : Act Up-Paris threatened to Oust a homosexual member of the Assembly present at the anti-PaCS demonstration.
– October 1999 : zap of the Senate in reaction to members’ homophobe remarks. ]] and vigilance of Act Up-Paris and other public interest groups, the waiting period for inheritance rights has been deleted.
During the course of the debates, a PaCS watch Group that brings together users of the Pact (Act Up-Paris, AC!, Aides Fédération nationale, Aides Paris Ile de France, Association des Parents et futurs parents Gays et Lesbiens, Association pour la Reconnaissance des Droits des personnes Homosexuelles et Transsexuelles à l’Immigration et au Séjour, Centre Gai et Lesbien de Paris, Prochoix), was created for the purpose of permanently monitoring its application. The watch group collects and makes public all of the difficulties encountered by the users: problems with registration, residency cards, allocation of social services, allowing for adoption and so forth.
By pointing out in a systematic manner the incoherence and vagueness of the text, the watch group intends to participate in the creation of case law responding to users’ needs.
Nonetheless Act Up-Paris does not intend to be satisfied with the symbolic acknowledgement of homosexual couples provided by the PaCS. For sexual equality, Act Up-Paris demands that all couples be allowed to marry. Moreover, within the framework of the general reform on family law, the Jospin government must now take into account the questions that the PaCS carefully avoided: homoparental family, adoption, medical aid for procreation. Finally the government must encourage the drafting of a law against the incitement of homophobic hatred.
