A friend of mine, let’s call him Jack, who lives in Paris, France, emailed me that he has decided to tie the knot –so to speak as it turned out- with his girlfriend, Marie, whom he had been living with for five years. Jack moved to Paris after a messy divorce in the US, during which he lost a substantial amount of money to his ex.
Why do I say “so to speak?”
Because the couple did not opt for the traditional marriage but rather for a “civil union” solution, the one we have been reading in the news concerning gay couples. It took 15 minutes in front of a judge and they got their Civil Solidarity Pact (PACS) which gives them a half-way status between living together and getting married.
“Why did you choose such a half-solution? It must be a handful of people opting for this kind of thing” I sort of guessed in an uneducated manner. I understood that the law had been drafted mainly for gays, but since the language was rather ambiguous, it was also adopted by a few straight couples. “Not that few” Jack corrected me. Close to 150,000 couples chose it last year I was informed. It has an air of independence, it has incorporated financial advantages, and it is easier to terminate than a traditional marriage, Jack continued, obviously beaming on the other end.
“It sounds like a substitute for marriage” I pressed.
“But it is” Jack explained. “Don’t you love it?... This is how I declare my independence from society’s rules, expectations. Not to mention the mess of divorce. If either one of us wants to end it, I or Marie, go to the court, declare our wish in writing, and we are done. Neither one has any rights on the other person’s property or money.”
So I decided to do a bit more research on this PACS half-solution. I found that although it was designed for gay couples, 90% of "solidarity pacts" a year are now being made between people of the opposite sex. Indeed, as Jack said, it can be ended with a simple letter from either partner. And indeed it provides near-identical financial and benefits as marriage, like joint tax returns and qualification for deductions. However evaluation of this plan remains difficult as various privacy laws prohibit the collection of statistics on this particular arrangement.
As we observe the collapse of the nuclear family and the rising number of single parents, I wonder whether we are heading towards a PACS alternative in this country too.
Do you think the circumstances are ripe for such a shift in the US? Would you personally support it or oppose it?
106 comments:
I oppose the PACS solution. It is unfair to allow couples to have the same benefits as married couples and not be married. It only assists to further the breakdown of traditional families and says that it is okay to build a life together without being married. Soon, society will not know the difference between a married and unmarried couple. How far will the world go to make other solutions just to make a small percentage of society happy? The larger community hushes and allows the the small number inbetweens and misfits to grow loud and turn the world into a place with no morals or expectations, just a place full of exceptions.
God is love, and without love a marriage will not grow closer. Love is a sacrifice and a life-long commitment not just an open door to come in and out of when it is convenient. Love is not selfish or greedy. True love will give all of oneself and be left with nothing for the other person. Currently, people are afraid of commitment and full of greed. “What can I get out of it” instead of “what can I give”. A Civil Solidarity Pact (PACS) is just another way of saying : I love you, but if times get tough I want an easy way out; I want all my belongings to go with me, and I am not willing to go through trials with you to get stronger, only the thin times but not the thick. Personally, I oppose this idea. I believe that a marriage is a life-long commitment, and like any relationship, it has to be constantly woven together for closeness and strength. Forget about the perishable items and cling to love. True love endures forever, and who God (Jesus Christ, Word) puts together, no man can separate.
I definitely agree with the first two comments. Marriage is a lifelong commitment; a couple is either married or not. There should not an in-between. Ultimately divorce should never be an option, but if it does get that point, ofcoarse it should be a messy break-up. That is the consequence of divorce, life isn't easy. Society IS trying to make things easy for everyone: majority and minority. It doesn't work. Everyone cannot be pleased. Those (1man and 1woman) who want the benefits of married couple, should get totally committed.
I think the PACS solution is a good idea for gay relationships who are unable to get married because of where they live due to gay marriage being forbidden. However, for straight couples wanting an in-between marriage sounds ridiculous. Marriage is forever, till death do you part and so on and so forth. There are no, we'll just stay married for a while, but if you get on my nerves we'll just split up, no. Marriage is the long haul and not something people should do on a whim. So as far as the PACS solution goes I believe it should be reserved for gay couples who are unable to get married due to there place of residence. Homosexuals are people also, not aliens like how most of society depicts them to be as if they have some sort of deadly virus so why treat them different? The PACS solutioin is something that will most likely never be banned, but I do feel that only necessary individuals should use it.
I am in total opposition to Civil Solidarity Pacts instead of marriage for straight couples. If people begin replacing marriages with a Civil Solidarity Pact, the nuclear family will no longer exist. What kind of an example are we setting for our children if their mom and dad live together but don't love each other enough to actually commit to marriage? Divorce rates keep increasing because people get married with the idea of "If it doesn't work out, we can just get a divorce." I think it makes a mockery of love, commitment and sacrifice. Giving benefits to straight couples under "civil unions" basically is rewarding people for not committing to each other. It totally takes the "Till death do us part" line of a marriage out and replaces it with "Till times get rough." I think it's a cheap way to escape commitment.
From all of the complaints that are rising up from divorces and gay relationships here in America, I believe that PACS could easily make it's way here in America. BUT, I personally do not approve of it. Like the first couple comments said, there shouldn't be an in between. I swear that people keep coming up with crazier solutions for their little complaints. If you're afraid of getting a divorce and losing money, then is your heart really in love with your potential mate?! If you truly love someone, and they truly love you, then get married and you won't have to worry about a divorce. A divorce is just a lazy way to get out of trying harder to make something work. You're not always going to be head over heels for that special someone. Sometimes you'll be upset, or maybe even hate them. But a marriage is a LIFE-LONG COMMITMENT, "For better or for worse." Not 'For love until we get annoyed with each other.' People need to learn to love! The only reason for divorce should be abuse (verbal, mental, and physical), because no one should ever be treated like that, and it could become dangerous, and for an affair. But if it's a petty arguement of "She uses the credit card too much" or "All he wants is sex" then you should see a counselar!
All I ask of America is to stop making up so much crap and LEARN to be smart enough to make better decisions in their spouses!
Remember: Emotions can be deceiving... I am against PACS
When it comes to gay marriges that are not accepted in some states i would say that the pacs solution is a good idea. It is not their fault that the government wont allow them to marry so why should they not have a form of commitment. But on the other hand it seems like a couple that is permited to get married but they go with this PACS idea is not in love. If one loves the other or the other way around why should marrige be ruled out. If the man i wanted to marry told me he didnt want to get married but have a civil union aggrement i would question our relationship. If its financial problems the couple is worried about then there is something out there called a pre-numpt in america. But i really dont agree with those either. Either way bringing in this new form of a marrige is crazy love is love and if you belive that then get married, if you cant trust the one your with....well maybe that means your not ment to be.
I would totally get PACS instead of being married. Personally I really don’t care whether or not some system knows how I feel about someone. Screw this whole prenuptial agreement stuff; if you care about someone enough to get married no amount of fighting should make you put them out in the cold. In the case of cheating why are you going to marry someone to cheat on them, granted you never know what’s going to happen in life but if you want to be with someone else you should tell your wife/husband that. Truthfully the only reason to get married now-a- days is for tax exceptions and deductions, so why not have a speedy way of getting it done. If people are mature enough to get married they should be mature enough to get divorced in a civilized manner. I don’t want to even get started about the gay marriage thing and the corruptness of it all. The idea of marriage being federally regulated is an oxymoron compared to separation of church and state, so why would god have a thing to do with gay people getting married. In short yes the US should adopt this so I can save more money and my personal life have less to do with the government.
Of course the Pacs solution is coming to America. America is and has been swaying towards anything that can get them out of responsibility for their own actions. If it feels good do it, honey I wont marry you but I'll go for a civil union, so if I get tired of you I can get out of this relationship easy no messy divorce, where I might have to pay for my actions of infedelity if I get married. I might cheat on you honey so lets do this instead. How ridiculous does this sound? But of course if there is an easy way out there will always be people to go for it. Marriage is supposed to be a lifelong commitment, we are devaluing marriage by letting such a thing into our society. Straight people should not be allowed this option, end of story.
I personally think that there is no real solution. Whatever PACS does or not it will be toward one firection. For it going to the direction they want it is up to them to tell the public why its a good idea. I think that people are just trying to rule in a certain way and saying what people can and cannot do but i think its wrong to be the decider in what people can and cannot do. Its a country were there are bad and good things and it happens all the time. Like everyone in the world is different and we as humans cant change that and i dont think its a bad thing that same sex marriagaes happen. I think it really has to do with religion and people go by that but i think religion is messed up anyway. I agrree on something religion has to say but not everything. I dont know if there is a word for that. Just think about it what IF the world was alll same sex marrige and then they said you cant marry the oppisite sex i wonder how that would feel for everone. View come from different perspectives and we cant stop what is already happening just let the course take its path
I think that PACTS will make its way into the U.S and will probably be adopted by the higher class of society, because they are greedy and afraid to lose money through a divorce. I do believe that this is good for the homosexual marriages, because it allows them to have the same advantages of being married; however, I don’t believe this should be allowed for straight couples. If you Love someone you should be willing to commit to them 100 percent and be there for them no matter what. It just seems like the values of marriage have completely changed, people are getting married for all the wrong reasons. I think that if you’re a straight couple and you truly Love your partner you should marry them and fully commit, not just go into half way knowing that if it doesn’t work down the road you can just back out of it, that is complete bull, it is pretty much the same as dating and being boyfriend/ girlfriend. I am not for PACTS and I do not agree with them for a heterosexual couples.
I do not agree with PACS. It doesn't make any sense to me. I do understand and respect it for homosexuals, and it benfits them. But how does that help hetrosexuals? I think thats just being selfish for a hetrosexual. If you love someone and want to commit then get married. Its the traditional thing to do, why does it have to change the way it is?. I believe everyone will begin to do it if they pass it here in the U.S. I would want to give my all to my husband when I do get married. That is, finaically and emotionally. There shouldn't be an 'in-between'. Either you are commited or not.
I strongly agree with this idea. If it is easier to be together without having the stress of a full out marriage, it gives the couple choices. If they end up having a long lasting civil union they may choose to actually officially become married. Divorce is such a costly, timely, and emotionally stressful process for every married couple. This would eliminate backed up courts and possibly reduce the divorce rate. I also like the idea because it opens people's minds to the idea of gay marriage. If straight people can choose "how married" they want to be then why not gays? Once again choice is the issue here and it is well thought out. I think this idea should most definitely be brought to the US. :]
I feel that a PACS is just a further degradation away from the morals and beliefs that this country was founded on. It also just further deteriorates the concept of marriage and continues the idea that disposable relationships are okay. The whole concept of marriage is that it is forever not until one person isn’t in the mood to be married, or that month when it’s not convenient to be married. PACSs are just another way of teaching our young people that they don’t have to stay committed to anyone or anything despite what they might have said, felt or believed at one time in their life. Kids no longer date as a way to find who to marry, but rather they just learn the art of divorce at a younger age thinking that it doesn’t have as great of an impact on their lives as it really does. I say no. If you want the commitment, the benefits and the security, take the responsibility for it. Do the mature thing and own up to the choices you’ve made and keep the promises that you gave. Why should the selling point of Civil Solidarity Pacts be the fact that they are easily ended? Marriage is hard, why should it be easy to end? It takes dedication, commitment and selfless enduring love to make it work. With PACSs it’s no longer about what I can do for the person I am sharing my life with, but what can I gain from them. Convenience should not be the new synonym for marriage.
I'm trying to look at it from both sides. It sounds compelling for people with horrible trust issues. If someone has gotten married and has thought his/her one true love was perfect only to have been divorced by them, wouldn't you be a little paranoid about the next one having lost half your stuff? I’ve never been married, considering that I’m nineteen, but from what I hear marriage is about trust and sacrifice. If you really love someone take the leap of faith, you might land safely on the other side. Isn’t the idea of marriage commitment and trust? Will PACS destroy tradition families? A small maybe. On the other hand they might gain trust of each other over time and decide to get married later anyways.
I personally disagree with the PACS solution. I feel like it is unfair to allow couples to have the same benefits as married couples and not be married. Marriage is a life-long commitment for both side to become one. If you are married, you are and if you are not, then you are not. There shouldn’t be in between. If I’m in a relationship and I believe that we love each other, I would wanna marry her. But if she says no but wanna have a civil union agreement, I would like to think about what I know about her. But for gay marriage, I have to say it is a good idea since some government won’t allow gay marriage.
I oppose the PACS solution because I think it's stupid. I don't see whhy people want the benefits of marriage but don't want to actually go through with the special union. I also think the government is succumbing to the wants of America's citizens. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but this is pretty extreme. If a couple want to live together let them do so, but if they want to "pretend" to be married, the government shouldn't support that. The government should stick to the rules regarding the institution of marriage. No ifs, and or buts.
I personally think that this shift will be great for the US. Speaking from a homosexual point of view, civil unions would be remarkable for us. As for straight families, I think that it is ok too. I mean, who is anyone to judge anybody else?? Everyone is always "screaming" "oh civil unions will break up a traditional marriage between husband and wife." With the rising number of divorces in this country, why shouldn't people of the same sex or opposite sex for that matter, be able to have a civil union? It isn't hurting anyone to allow people to receive a civil union. Some people don't believe in marriage and some just simply aren't allowed to get married. I completely agree with NOTOFTHISWORLD. The PACS is just another way of saying "i love you" Because of all the trials and tribulations people have to go through to get divorced, some stay married and UNHAPPY which may eventually lead to infidelity which can cause spreading of STDs, drug addiction due to depression. I mean these may sound a little far-fetched but I have seen it happen first hand with one of my family members. So yes, I think the PACS solution would help alot of people in many ways.
I do support the PACS solution. Their are people out there that use marriage as a way to gain property to other peoples belongings. I do believe marriage is all about loving one another. Maybe, using the PACS solution people will get married for the right reasons, and not use it as a easy way in growing in life. With economy being so bad, people are looking for their other someone by what they have in their bank accounts rather then the inside of someones heart. This shows how ignorant people are in this world. I also would think the PACS solution would definitely decrease the divorce rates.
PACS, to me, seems to be the easy way out for couples. I guess this is for those people that irresponsibly got married and then later on decided that things were getting stale. Well duh! ALL marriages get boring from time to time. No one's marriage is exciting every single day for the rest of their lives. If (and most likely when) America adopts this for straight couples, everyone could kiss commitment out the window. Just think, gay people are fighting so hard to have the right to marry, and straight people are trying to get out of conventional marriage. I suppose one man's garbage is another man's treasure...
I think that with Marriage being under attack from all angles, that as a society, we ARE moving towards PACS. Our society is one that was founded on religious principles, but as we continue to develop, we are moving away from the very principles we were founded on. The separation of church and state was the impetus of the breakdown of morality in the U.S., and the fight to remove religion from all aspects of American life continues. The divorce rate if I remember correctly is about 75%. Knowing that, why wouldn't a rich doctor, or lawyer want to go the route of PACS? With men and women sexually and emotionally cheating on each other in greater numbers and more people moving away from Christianity, are PACS really surprising? Read this:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/03/09/us.religion.less.christian/index.html
I wouldn't do a PACS or a legal agreement with a woman, but I can definitely understand why people would want to in this day and age. The gays want their representation, heterosexual males may want to hold onto their assets, and women may the same. Either way, I wouldn't go that route, but I completely understand it for those which it benefits. Maybe the civil union can be leveraged as a stepping stone to a full marriage.
XxHunanrightsXX
The link does not work...
It does seem that the time might be right for civil unions in our country. We are in such hard economic times and it will be getting worse before it gets better. A civil union would make divorce easer and more economical. It would also make benefits easy for couples. However, just because we can, doesn't mean we should!
I just can't support civil unions because of my Christian beliefs. That is the black and white of it. Our country was founded on those beliefs. Marriage between and man and a woman is a fundamental part of that belief system. I will continue to support marriage.
I can certainly see many couples opting for the PACS option. In many ways, they already are there, through the use of prenuptial agreements. I am a supporter of individual rights. If all those involved in a union, gay or straight, agree on the terms of that union, who gives anyone else the right to question their personal decision. Marriage for those who choose marriage, and PACS for those that wish not to marry and of course, simple co-habitation for the rest, they should all be valid choices left up to the individuals. We stick our noses into far to many places that simply are not our business.
I personally agree that PACTS is coming to America. Marriage is not the same of what it used to be a few years ago; something common and ordinary is divorce. Decades ago society was against divorce, but now the whole perspective has change drastically. I do believe this is a good thing for homosexuals because it allows them to have a union. I believe getting married is a big part of anyone’s life; marriage is a lifetime commitments. I do not agree with PACs but I agree because there is a lot of couples that change their personally drastically after they get marry. I have seen relationships that fall just because the logo of “marriage” and commitment of marriage scares them. I personally do not think that I would waste my time with that. When I decide to get marriage hopefully it will be a life time commitment.
I do not agree with the PACS solution. I believe that for couples to have the same rights as married couples is just unfair. People go through many years trying to find the special person. They love and care for that person and divorce should be the last option. This PACS solution is really absurd and just basically says that although i love if anything was to happen between us and we breakup and are not able to fix up our relationship I want all of the belongings to be given to me.This concept is not right and should never be upheld. Marriage is a lifelong commitment and once you accept that commitment you should live and die with your beloved other and not follow the PACS solution.
When I first read this, I thought "Hell yes! I would totally do that before ever getting married!"
Then I read everyone's comments. I almost completely changed my view for a moment there, but still linger on this civil union idea being good for heterosexual couples. Perhaps since there is in fact no "in-between" to making a relationship official, the people who would opt for a civil union (if they are in fact aware of it) choose to get married. If the idea of a civil union between heterosexual couples was more recognized, maybe those couples who cause the divorce rate to be so high would learn of their incompatibility through the civil union. I understand how it doesn't seem "fair" or undermines marriage, but it serves as a sort of stepping stone.
However, I do not believe the benefits should be even close. Maybe half of what a married couple would have, if even. It's possible that a large portion of the divorce percentage got married solely for the purpose of "furthering" their relationship, rather than actually committing to "till death do you part". So, with an option such as a civil union, those couples looking to further their relationship with some sort of legal document can opt for that instead of something as concrete as marriage.
Again, I understand how it undermines marriage...but with the direction the country is going anyways, we may as well make the best of it. Face it, it's not going to turn in the opposite direction.
I also disagree with this PACS solution. Sure it is a good thing for gay couples but not for straight couples. It is ridiculous. You either love that person and want to be committed, or you do not.If you are not ready to be with the person you love for the rest of your life then don't. If people start replacing marriage with this PACS thing, then where does the idea of a family take place? It would ruin it. People are just selfish and they do not want to take responsibilty for their actions. I just think it is something to really think about.
Yes, the conditions are ripe for PACS. The conditions are ripe for anything that's easy because that is what we are...easy. Everyone has rights to do whatever they want with no expectations. You don't have to work, the Government will support you and all your children. Sure this new method of shacking up will take off; it's easy and pain free.
Marriage is a commitment that fewer and fewer people want to deal with. America has lost it's moral fabric and this is just one more step in the wrong direction.
I don't care if gays get married except take heed...it's just a step toward having full rights which, people, includes adoption.
PLEASE check this out:
Look up
45 Communist Goals (1963)
How to destroy America.
This is how the communist planned to implode America upon itself. Congress reported on this in 1963 and it's terrifying to see just how many of those goals have been met.
I feel that it should be: you are married (gay, straight, lesbian, whatever!!!), or you're not married. If two people love each other and get married they should get the benefits of a married couple. If two people love each other and do not want to get married, they should be able to have the same benefits as a married couple if that's what they want. That's just the way it should be.
It just seems to make the most sense.
I don't understand why it's such a big deal. Two people in love who are going to spend the rest of their life together should be able to have those benefits. I have heard of and seen couples who choose not to get married because it's a religious thing, and it's against their beliefs. Why should they not have the same benefits? Isn't it supposed to be seperation of church and state? Not, get married under god or don't have the benefits! That's completely ridiculous!
These days, it seems like anything and everything makes its way into the United States eventually (that is, if we didn’t start it ourselves). The morality of our nation is in worse condition than our economy. Society is run by selfish, arrogant, and careless values. It seems that everything sacred and pure is being attacked, perverted, and mutilated – especially the idea of marriage.
What was originally meant to be a reflection of heavenly love is now in most cases a picture of pure selfishness. If a couple would enter into a relationship knowing that the core of a great relationship is selflessness (to consider their companion first, above themselves), they might go about it differently.
I don’t agree with PACS because I believe it falls short of God’s best for our lives. He specifically planned the marriage relationship to represent His love for us - a sacrificial, committed, never-ending love. Nothing can destroy the beauty of a romance built by God; any other kind is destined to fail.
P.S. The movie Fireproof has a lot to say on the subject, I highly recommend it!
I agree with civil union for straight couples, I do believe that this is good for the homosexual marriages, because it allows them to have the same advantages of being married; however, I don’t believe this should be allowed for straight couples. If you Love someone you should be willing to commit to them 100 percent and be there for them no matter what. I believe that a marriage is a life-long commitment, and like any relationship, it has to be constantly woven together for closeness and strength. So I think that the PACS solution would help a lot of people in many ways.
Krishna
You say you agree and then you disagree... ???
Most seem to oppose the idea on the basis of what marriage should be. Not on what it actually is.
Reality shows we have a 50% divorce rate, and one third of children are born out of wedlock. Also you can get a divorce online nowdays for $160. Divorce is difficult and can get messy when one party opposes it or opposes the terms.
Now, if you look into the causes of divorce, number one appears to be rising individualism. We tend to do what is best for "me" not what is best for the "team."
How does one protect oneself against the possibility of a marriage collapse? Does a religious committent make a difference? Does counseling make a difference? Or given the media we have, according to which, anything goes, it's a lost battle?
When I attended the conference in Orlando last week, the main speaker was the US former ambassador to Senegal. She spoke of the low opinion the locals had of Americans because what they were watching on TV was DALLAS and DYNASTY, in which some disturbing role models emerged and dominated.
I am against the PACS solution. I believe that if you are in love enough to be married and be together forever then you are together forever and you share responsibilities for everything and you share everything equally. If there are ANY doubts in your mind AT ALL when you are about to get married THEN DO NOT DO IT!! It’s as easy as that. If you choose to do the PACS solution you should not be allowed to have the same married rights as a normal married couple. I feel like it is the chicken way out of not wanting to be committed to something and fear takes over any other emotion you have for the other person.
I am for the PACS but they need to clarify what exactly what is entiltled with the PACS. It sounds like this is a subsittue for marrige, which is not right. If man and women want to be completly committed they should be leagally married. Yes divorce is messy, it the way it is becuase when you got married oyu said till death do us part, now with the PACS, i thunk it is a little more diffuclt to end your union whith somedody then how they make it seem. They make it seem black and white, which nothing ever is. Not everyone is going to be satisfied with the decisions made. I do think this is an excellent solution for gays.
When we are blessed in finding our mate in life, we should honor our partner with love, commitment, loyalty and the endless sharing there is mutually between the two. PACS clearly defies and contradicts such religious beliefs and traditions. Why settle for half of the commitment if we are so much in love with someone, to only end it later because it didn't work. I don't believe there should be a solution for a quick seperation with no legal implications. If you are not ready to marry, don't commit. But in the same sense, if your not ready to live with someone to love, share, and honor...don't take that chance either. We should all make rational,logical, and intellectual decisions before we put ourselves in a situation where it will hurt us and question family normalcy and traditions later.
I agree with what "notofthisworld" said.. "Love is a sacrifice and a life-long commitment not just an open door to come in and out of when it is convenient. Love is not selfish or greedy. True love will give all of oneself and be left with nothing for the other person. Currently, people are afraid of commitment and full of greed"
When people decided to get married they hopefully are in love and want to share there lives together FOREVER. I know things happen and change with time but is it necessary to always have an easy way out. People are so affraid of commitment. Hopefully when one diecides to get married thoughts of "what if we divorce I want all th money, or if we get divorced I don't want to deal with all the crap that goes along with it I just want out. I feel people who choose the partial way to marriage PACS solution that its just a waste of time. If your that worried about maybe if you divorce blah blah DONT GET MARRIED! To be honest if someone wanted to marry me this way i'd almost take it as an insult and that they were afraid of commitment and so fourth. Seriously if one truley loves another and wants to spend the rest of there lives together than is he or she really worried about money or divorce? I really don't agree with the whole PACS solution.
I am for civil unions, especially if it makes the divorce process that easy. I am going though a divorce after 19 years of marriage. We have two children 19 and 15. I never thought i would get divorced, but with that in mind no one knows what will happen down the road.
PACS could make it easy...I truly believe that the emotional and finicial suffering wouldn't be so harsh on the family if the process did't take so long and cost so much. I'm coming up to close to $20,000.00 in legal fees and still going. When all is said and done, I'm sure my soon to be x would have rather split the $20,000+ and moved on.
My 65 year old father, just got married for the fourth time. His past divorces cost him and his families loads of money and it was extremly stressful.Finally, he learned his lesson after being burned by his last wife (she married for money). Now, for the first time he did insist on getting a prenup.
Prenups could possibly weed out these types of marriages ( marry for money) which seem to be very common. In some states they are already requiring that couples have form of a prenup agreement.
Unfortunally, we need to face the facts, divorce in this country is hitting 60%. Why not prepare for the worst, maybe it would even weed out some marriages and lower the divorce rate.The only reason I would not marry again is the fear of going through an other divorce. If the oppurtunity to marry comes about in the future, I WILL DO A PRENUP IF NOT I WILL STAY SINGLE!
I certainly oppose the "PACS" idea simply because it is just another way to scam the US out of money. It is bad enough that our taxes do not fully come back to us or that people get money from the government for so many various reasons. The world that Americans are living in surely defines that we are plummeting. If this law turns over then we as the people are slowly allowing the sacredness of marriage to become abyss. Think of our society and where we want to go as citizens and people that should hold morals.
I think this is a really great spin on things. If in our country we were to do something similar to the civil union in France, im not sure how homosexuals would feel about that. From my personal knowledge they want all the same rights as a married hetro couple, but i could be wrong. Lets say this was accepted by the homosexual community and we did have a civil union program similar to the one mentioned, i feel it would do very well. For example, because of possible financial issues my mother and her significant other of 6 years are not married. They live together, pay bills together, share bank accounts, and even cook together. The problem with typical marriage now for them and other people in there situations, there is too much looming on marriage itself, and too much that could go wrong if the relationship doesnt work out. This would give options to so many people, especially people in our younger age group who are in love and been with there partner for a while, but are concerned about marriage itself. I deffinately see why so many people in France would take advantage of such a wonderfully done union.
I do not support PACS alternative to be in effect here in the US. I think first of all it should be harder to get married and maybe even a requirement to take course. Then people will first think about it more and do some type of work involve to make sure that this is the right decision. There is no alternative to marriage and if you don’t want to have all the issues with finances or splitting everything between each other then do a prenuptial agreement. But like with everything there can be negatives and positive factors . I do not think that this should be allowed an easy route. For me this would be so much easier too because I live with my boyfriend and he and I could have done taxes together also our insurance would be cheaper and many others. But then what would children, teenagers, and adults look forward to when finding the love of their life. I believe also having this available in the US will cause more issues and more couples will have easier ways of getting out of a relationship that they should make work because everything has it ups and downs and if they knew that it is an easy process there is nothing to stay for.
I don't see the difference. People associate marriage with a piece of paper. It is much more than that. It is a commitment between two people and really nobody should judge whether it is right or wrong. I have been living with the father of my daughter for 12 years now and we have always been there for each other and we are a family even though we are not legally married. I know couples who got married right around the time my boyfriend ( I see him as my husband, but anyway) and I moved in together and they divorced within a couple of years. I am honestly offended by some of the comments. My daughter knows that her father and I are not married and still she sees us as a happy family and we have explained to her what it means to make a commitment to be together, a piece of paper has nothing to do with the way you educate your children and the values that you teach them as a parent. My parents where married and my childhood was not perfect to say the least. For us the most important thing is family and in no way the decision of people to live together is destroying society's values. It bothers me that people feel that they have the right to judge. This is the problem with humanity, everybody think they have the truth on their hands. Not every thing works for everybody and people should learn to respect that. I believe people have the right to choose what they want to do. This are personal decisions and the only ones that have to live with them are themselves so I don't see why is this anybody's concern. Family is composed of people who love each other and care for each other, I don't need a piece of paper to remind me of what my responsibilities are and how I am supposed to treat and raise my child and yes, my husband.
I personally agree with the PACS solution with the way todays world is turning out to be with the divorce rates and all. Yeah i agree with a few of you but at the same time people are marrying people for the money and alot of marriages are not even lasting for at least 5 years so i dont see why the PAcs solution cant exist due to the fact that their are coomon law marriages where to people may live together share children together and etc but now i guess there is a better solution for it which seems to be the PACS. I think we as a socciety should realize that in the U.S. especially that people get all caught up in the fantasy of the wedding than the actual marriage and sadly it ends in divorces which are very expensive and end up leaving people in a tight financial situation. The PACS solution seems like a way safer route than marriage yes in a way its kind of wrong but at the same time people have abused the concept of marriages to the point where I dont know why people are even geeting married because they are not lasting long like they use to 30 years ago its rediculous.
I think that the PACS solution is coming to America because many people want the easy way out of things and that would be an easy way to get the benefits of marriage without the commitment. I do think it is good for solution for gay marriages. I personally do not support the PACS solution because if you love a person and want to get married why go half way. It should be a full commitment and summit to the consequences if you get a divorce. Life is hard and marriage is difficult, but you are either in or you’re out.
Marriages are more likely than not to end in failure creating a drain on the legal system and allowing the accepted practice of paid parties to divide the stuff. We also leave a huge amount of children to grow up with out a father (most likely) or a mother allowing this whole cycle to repeat. Should you chose not to get married most would assume something is wrong with you or if you get a divorce then you must have failed. Our expectations of marriage may be to high. We don't as a culture seem to be getting better with age at caring for one another so how do we expect this institution to morally solve our problems? Traditions are fine but not if they stand in the way of progress. This civil union idea might not be the solution but given our past risk taking behavior why not try?
I think PACS will eventually make its way to the U.S. because we already have couples that have been together for years but don't go through the legal process of getting married-it's called common law marriage. If a person isn't willing to commit I don't see where the PACS will make a difference. If you are in a relationship and living with that person, if that person is your sole provider they can claim you on their taxes-I remember being asked that question when I did my taxes. If both parties contribute equally, is the tax write-off the only reason any kind of commitment is being made? There are many companies that already offer benefits to domestic partners both straight and gay, City of Tampa and Hillsborough County do. I think some states will accept PACS and some won't, just like the gay marriages. I don't know what the legal benefits of it would be as far as being able to make emergency medical decisions or receiving your PACer's social security benefits in the event of death etc. But if something happens to your loved one, that's not the time to find out. I wouldn't agree to someone PACing me but to each his own.
I oppose to the PACS solution. I oppose it because, like others said before me, it will have the future generation believing that is what marriage is. They can change there minds later on like they change there minds about their love for their boyfriend/girlfriend. Marriage is suppose to last for a long time there is no warranty saying after a year if you wish to divorce cause you change your mind about loving that person we will give you your life back with what you had before the marriage. Marriage is a tradition. It distinguish the boyfriend/girlfriend from the husband/wife. Boyfriend/girlfriend changes, husband/wife is once in a lifetime. They shouldn't get the benefits for being a Boyfriend/Girlfriend that goes to married couples.
BadgeBanny
I do not know what happens in case of death.
In todays society, I can understand why gay couples, heterosexual, prefer a PACS agreement. I personally do not support a PACS agreement; and I do not think that Americans would fully embrace it.Americans have gone crazy for weddings, this can be seen daily in the media. Supporting such television programs as Bachelor and the Bachelorette, wedding makeovers, fantasy weddings etc.Even though statistics showed that around fifty percent of marriages end in divorce,this has not prevented people from getting married.Marriage is a commitment, when you make a vow it should be made without any reservation, any additions or subtractions. It is a solemn promise of love and dedication in good times and bad times. PACS just offers and easy way out, it undermines a marriage.
I dont agree with PACS solution. Although, it may seems a convenient option for most people nowadays because of the economic horror we are facing, but it still not reasonble way to unite to people(opposite sex). People like Jack who choose PACS are the type of people who wantS to be with someone without full commitment.If a man or woman is not sure about his/her partner- dont marry him/her!!!!simple as that. For me, having a relationship is not a joke, let alone getting married. Marriage is a relationship that involves risks, failures, arguments. The PACS solution destroys the meaning of marriage! I think its ridiculous, stupid, unethical idea to be applied to couple with opposite sex. I am totally against it.
I’ve read several of the post here and I may the in the minority because I would definitely support this PACS solutions but with some modifications.
I say its about time someone thought of an easier way to marry and divorce. I think the old fashioned way of marriage has nearly disappeared.
It’s not so glamorous and expensive as it once was. And not many people are opting to officially tie the knot because of the expense involved.
Two of my sister’s had the traditional expensive showy weddings. Complete with singers, bands and catered reception. They just “had to” rent a hall to accompany all their friends and family. They even ordered an professional photographer. I can’t even begin to describe their wedding gown. Of course, they paid for all of this luxury themselves. (What a way to start out a marriage: going into debt.)
This new PACS solution would have been perfect for both of them. People have to understand that just because this option is available, they don’t have to participate if they don’t want to.
This initiative isn’t mandatory . You can go this route if you want to or you can still opt for the traditional way. Your choice.
For some people (including straight people) this is perfect. Nowadays people are just not staying together for very long. Some leave after the first bumpy road, some tough it out for several years and some people just go in and out of marriage like the provable revolving door.
This new PACS thing might be just what we now need. I think it will really catch on but it does need so tweaking. It should require more than a simple letter to end the marriage. That’s just too easy.
But I do agree that something should be in place to safeguard people’s finances or property.
Actually all this is already in place. We have pre-nuptials agreements. I don’t think this should take the place of how property and finances are now handled when you divorce. I still believe alimony and palimony should stay.
Also what property and money made while together should be split between parties. Looking at it again, there will be only a little change from what’s going on now.
We should understand that times are changing and the concept of this PACS was already in place. Think about the common law marriages of today. I know of at least three of my friends that live together without a “marriage certificate” yet for all practical purposes they are thought of as being married.
They have fixed it so that if they should “split” (same as divorce) they would be able to have the same benefits that they would have had had they gotten married ie., what you go in with is yours, what you accumulate while together, is for both people. Now tell me how this is different from this PACS?
All that this is is just a new name for an old way.
This situation of a so-called "social contract" is another symptom of a society where a person is allowed to do whatever suits them at the time. Whatever happened to commitment? Under this law, I could conceivable have several civil unions. What is to stop me? I could go around asking women the age old question "Will you union with me?" Marriage is just another institution that today's society is trying to do away with because of its connection to God. When people marry, they marry in the sight of God. Civil unions allow two people to commit to each other in the sight of each other. Which "union" do you think is easier to break? This is just laughable.
I think the PACS is bad idea for straight couples. It's not right for couples to have the same benfits as married couples. It just an easy way for copules to get a divorce. Marriage is a life long commitment. This union is trying to make is easy for everyone. Relationships should be based of benefits not money or casuel sex. I belive this idea is for gay couples not striaght. Those whose want marriage benefits should get married then. Marriage is not for kids. If you can make through hard times in the beginning of the realtionship, the marriage times will be easy.
I fully support this PACS Solution and hope that it does come into the United States. You say “traditional marriage” and you want to believe it is forever but with the divorce rates the way they are I can see why people are so hesitate to run to the court house to exchange vows. We all want to believe that love is forever and realistically dream/ hope to only make one commitment to one person for the rest of your life but society has evolved to a world that is learning to accept that it isn’t always forever those creating divorce.
I don’t think that it should be restricted to gay marriages only but open to any couple that is in a committed relationship. The PACS Solution allows couples to benefit the example of a so to speak traditional marriage minus the financial strain. For example; your significant other has horrible financial credit/ outstanding loans due to some poor judgment that seems to follow them many years later. When he/she decides to marry that financial burden is now shared by the significant other. Why should someone else’s fault hamper your ability to be approved for living/ household items? The PACS Solution eliminates that, making it feasible for couples to live happy and comfortable. Say a traditional marriage ends in a brutal divorce much like our friend Jack in the story in which he lost a great deal of money. Much like our previous discussion what believe that what you bring into a relationship is what you should be able to walk away from as well. No strings attached.
First, one must ask the question, Why do people get married? People are suppsed to get married because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their life together. Marriage is a covenent between two people that
says, I am in this with you for the rest of my life. There is no back door for me, no escape, should I become dissatisfied with you for being human, and making mistakes. This is me saying, I love you, and later on when real life sets in I will be there for you. If you have contengency clauses that says I will do this and you will do that and if at any time one of us doesn't fulfill these things, the other can back out. WRONG! THAT IS A CONTRACT, NOT A MARRIAGE. Marriage is saying, I'am am going to follow through with my part even when you doen't, because we are in this for better or for worse, till death do us part. If you choose to set up contengency clauses and get married the "gay way", because it makes it easier to get a divorce,
then you'r setting yourself up for failure even before you begin the marriage. So, personally I hate this idea. What a romantic thought it is to have someone propse
to you, and then to follow it up with, "Oh yeah, lets get married this way so WHEN we get tired of each other we can just leave."
This is not marriage, this is just two people living together for an extended period of time and claiming to be married.
I do believe the circumstances are ripe for this type of change, but I also believe that it will not reach a majority of all relationships. Most people like to continue old traditions, and marriage is the best example of this. On the other hand though, you can have the lavish wedding, but in reality it could be a pacs union. I personally would definitely put this idea into consideration for the same reasons of most marriages ending in divorce with high financial repercussions. The US as a whole is slow on social change, and it would be years until it was a regular socially acceptable idea.
I approve of the PACS. Now, I haven’t spent time to read everyone else’s comments but I did read the first several. I agree with the idea that we should hold people accountable for their actions on love, and that if things don’t work out that divorce should be a messy ordeal. However, my agreement with the PACS also comes with multiple stipulations. In the manner of gay or homosexual relationships right now I have no serious requirements for them, but in regards to the heterosexual relationships give them their PACS on a time restraint. Allow them benefits and everything as if they were married; but instead of having the duration lifelong, make it for only 2 years and they can’t renew, or extend. After the 2 years they either get married to keep the benefits or they continue to live together as single individuals. Due to the change in times and because no one in relationships “goes steady” anymore, I see this like that middle ground that there used to be before marriage. Kids in middle school and high school define “going out” as a spending exclusive time with one single individual with no opportunity to get to know other people. As an almost 30y/o and being brought up in the mind set of my parents, I see that as the same definition as “going steady”. (Correct me if I’m wrong) I have been married for almost 5 years now, and lived with my wife for a year before we were married, many people were offended by this but if we were in a PACS at that time I think it might have been more acceptable. I am not 100% for the idea with no strings attached, but due to the change in times and given certain rules and regulations regarding PACS I would be in agreement with having them.
I STRONGLY oppose a civil solidarity pact, especially between opposite sex couples. I think it degrades the meaning of marriage. Marriage is supposed to be a commitment not a contract, something that lasts forever, not a business agreement that can end much easier than divorce. I think most homosexual couples are not fighting for their right to have a business agreement with their life partners, but instead deeply want the sanction of marriage in a traditional sense so that society will recognize their love and commitment to each other, as a couple. Anyone can have a contractual agreement with anyone else, but marriage takes work, (a lot of work!) and should not be degraded so easily. Besides if you’re so afraid to commit to the person you’re with, then you are probably with the wrong person and should seriously consider moving on, until you find a person you can both love and TRUST. I guess trust is the component that is severely lacking when you choose a civil union over marriage.
I do not agree with PACS: Civil unions for straight couples. I does not make any sense to me. I understand and respect for homosexuals, and it benefits for them. How does that help homosexuals? I think that's just being selfish for the homosexual. If you love someone and want to commit then get married. Its the traditional thing to do, why does it have to change the way it is?. I believe everyone will begin to do it if they pass it here in the U.S. I want to give it to my wife when I do get married.
I think that something very similar, if not the same to PACS, will come about in the US whether or not the circumstances are ripe. As much as this is going against my beliefs, I think that PACS has good intentions, yet I do not agree to it in the very least. The problem that many seem to see is that the relationship won’t be as close as it could be due to fear of getting hurt in your finances, and possibly your heart (if you are willing to devote and sacrifice it). I would personally never continue with such a unification of a couple. I am not even sure if I agree with the unification of homosexual couples. The reason for being is that they would be receiving the same tax benefits as that of a married couple. How much money is this nation willing to give to the gay community? And why should heterosexual couples also be able to receive such benefits if they are not willing to fully commit. Not only is this nation in a deficit and in a struggling crisis, but so is the rest of the world. And please don’t misunderstand me; I do not at all hate gay people, but I do not agree with it.
By the way, I wonder how you would unofficially propose. Will the man still get on his knees and say, “Will you PACS me?”
I disagree with PACS, because is not right to stop in the half way, and say, you are completely married or not married. The Civil solidarity pact can’t be instead of marriage, in my opinion is not a really serious relationship because the Bible says “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” Hebrews 13:4. And marriage should be done in the church, because god says the Bible ”and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[a]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” Matthew 19:5-7.
I definitely oppose the PACS solution in the United States! I don’t think its fair that these people are getting the same rights as those who are actually legally married. I mean if you truly love a person, why would you want to do something that will make it easier for a divorce to follow through… that makes no sense, its like all these people are just asking for a future split and don’t even care… This so called “solution” really is just another screw up for our society as a whole. I don’t see how this is helping the people of this generation?!? I love my fiancé and I want to marry him legally because it’s a public vow saying that I want to be with him forever not going to court and signing a paper so it will be easier for us to get a divorce later down the road!!!
I do not agree with PACS solution because I believe it is not a possitive impact for our society and our future generation. People are already very selfish and materialistic, PACS make them even more.Marriage is a life long commitment; in addition, people need to respect and love each other not to escape from each other.There would be no meaning and value left between married and unmarried couple; in addition, it would be unfair with married couple because PACS couples would get the same benefits. NOT A GOOD SOLUTION!
I disagree with the PACS solution. I think it is unfair for couples to have the same privileges as a married couple. From my understanding God put us on this earth to love each other and eventually get married. Love is not swinging doors where you come in and out when you feel like it. Love is a lifelong commitment, you either get married or you don’t. There isn’t anywhere in the bible that states couples are to live together without getting married. That is wrong in god’s eyes so it shouldn’t be done, we shouldn’t make up rules as we see fit.
I agree with the people who oppose the PACS solution. It is not fair for the divorce couple to have the same benefits of a married couple. Also if people are allow to be married without compromise, then what would be the purpose of marriage? What would be the purpose of going to the church and have the pastor or preacher say the statement that might turn into a lie later? I agree that marriage should be forever; not just for a relatively small period of time. But sadly wouldn’t say that the PACS idea will not be allowed in US. After gay marriage is being allow then what will not?
I believe that the civil unions for the straight couples are a way for people who are scared of commitment to be able to live their lives, and still get away with the whole marriage thing. That is just an excuse for people who are scared of commitment point blank. I do not agree with it because, is that what you want to teach your children when they are older, that mommy and daddy are not techinically married but we still had you and your other siblings. Things like that will encourage the younger generations, and generations in general to think that have kids, and living with the opposite or same sex is okay, without being married. I do not think that it is a good message that is being portrayed here because then that means the society will be accomadating more single parents who are not technically married, and it can also help those people who are to scared of commitment with loop holes in the government, while all the other people who are not scared of commitment, and ARE married have to deal with the regular crap. It's just not fair to everyone else.
I oppose this idea because this is a way to make things easier, not be married but if something should happen they can very easily walk away with less strings attached then if your married, I understand that older couple who may have been widowed but has found somebody else, may not have the option of marriage because it takes away what their beloved left behind, Good example is my great aunt, she lost her husband i think 9 years ago and has found somebody new, However she would lose what he left for her if she were to remarry, so in the long run it would cost her more money to remarry then to just be together in their own eyes. I think something should be done for that, but this would make more people turn to that then to actually get married. I see this idea being abused, People go this route because they already have doubts that their relationship will prevail.
I strongly believe that the circumstances are incredibly developed for the Civil Solidarity Pact or PACS to transfer to the United States. I do support the Civil Solidarity Pact for homosexuals but I am in utter abhor of the thought of heterosexuals using the PACS as a backdoor in relationships. In today’s society, more couples are turning away from long termed commitments or marriage and looking towards options of just living together and possibly bringing children into this world. I think that it is very unjust for live-in couples to have the same benefits when compared to that of married individuals that have taken the responsibility of having a lasting and faithful relationship. One of the most significant parts of a relationship is sacrifice. If two individuals truly love each other they will not be looking for a backdoor just in case something went wrong in the relationship. When two individuals are in a relationship, everything is shared and one should expect to have to split everything evenly once separated and this includes finances, housing arrangements and possessions. Divorces are messy only because of certain circumstances in which individuals place themselves in. It seems that an individual can end the Civil Solidarity Pact with a simple letter and the two individuals will merely part and go their own separate ways taking what is theirs, but what happens in the case in which children that are brought into this world my these two individuals? It is one thing to be precautions and safeguard yourself in a relationship, but at the same time the physical, mental and emotional lost are all a part of experiencing love.
I agree with the PACS solution. If two people are willing to agree with the terms of the pact then they should be able to have some of the same rights as in a marriage. I actually like this idea a lot. So often you hear horrific divorce stories, and I think that it is good to have other options out there for people who are skeptical of getting married. The best part of this option is that you know exactly what your getting into before you do it. This is my first time hearing of this, but it sounds like a good idea.
I support it. I wish I had done this instead of getting married, then dealing with the divorce b.s. Even though in my situation it was a simple divorce and we both agreed on everything and split up our stuff equally that we had bought together as a married couple. But now I don't even want to think about getting remarried, since you can do the exact same thing just dating and living together. The tax benefits weren't even that good. It took one paper to sign to get married and about 200 or so to get divorced. With the high divorce rate this would be the next logical step. Just go down to the court house and say its over in a letter and you don't have to lose half your stuff. Which is usually the guys stuff. Plus this way you wouldn't have to worry about paying alimony also. I support this idea.
Do i think we are headed for such a shift in the United States. I would say yes Divorce rates are sky high. Almost to an epidemic proportion. My Uncles are all Multiple Divorcees. All got cleaned out by their ex-wives. Now would i oppose or support . I could honestly say i dont really care. I seriously think people should be allowed to do what they want to do. Get married to who they want be with who they want. I think the Untied States needs to be a hell of a lot different then it is now.PACS seems to me like once again we have found a loophole,and it will be taken advantage of. But i have no strong feelings towards it dont really care about it .
I do not agree with this PACS solution. Marriage is supposed to be sacred. When two people LOVE each other and want to share their life together, they get married. I do not think its right that couples can get a civil union and have the same rights as a marriage couple. This civil union is made for gay couples. It should be left for them since they are not allowed the right to get married. Straight couples have the right to get married and should cherish that right and not go for civil unions. I swear people do not think. They always try to find ways to get out of everything. If you do not want to get married, then DO NOT get married.
A lot of people won't agree with this but I believe there are several good reasons to have this brought into the U.S. First of all it will free up the court rooms, something like 1/2 of marriages end in divorce and thats alot of time the courts could be spending on other cases. Secondly this gives couples (hetero and not) the opportunity to see what effects marriage would have financially and if they are actually capable of getting married. So the divorce numbers would go down. I personally believe marriage is a better thing to do than this PACS thing because it should be all or nothing in a relationship but if some good came out of this why complain???
for same sex couples who feel strongly for eachother and wish to be together but cant because of the laws that stand against it in some states, i feel the PACS solution is perfect because it gives them some of the same benefits as an official married couple although i still feel it is not the public or governments place to say who can and cannot be married. As for tradition couples who choose this instead of actual marriage i feel their just chasing an easy way out from commitment. if a couple can come to an arguement not to get officialy married and choose the PACS, then their not trully in love and dont really see them selves staying together in the future. with this there is no core meaning to a relationship, it can end just like that. i feel that PACS should be left to the same sex couples who only want to be treated like everyone else and get the same benefits from being together. as for the traditional couple who are just taking advantage of it, instead of abusing the option there is something called a pre-nup
PACS is an absolute crock! By enabling individuals to not commit to a “real” marriage with real life challenges is pathetic. How will couples gay or straight ever learn to compromise in a committed relationship? All relationships require work and it should not be made easy to abandon. Think about the children born into a non-committed relationship. What type of values are we teaching them? What our world is missing is good old fashion morals. The entitlements that you get in a marriage between a man and women has rewards, insurance benefits, community property, and yes, it’s fare share of marital problems.
In all honesty i could say it does not matter to me. LIBERTY in this country means being able to do what you want. I think that the real problem here would have to be the fact that you get tax breaks from being married, and that upon divorce so many individuals are penalized and robbed of their wealth. So change the tax code! FAIRTAX! Also, make sure divorces end cleaner!
Wow this is crap. I work hard at my marriage to make everything go kosher for the Mrs. and I. The fact that anybody and there uncle can get the same benefits is appaling. Whats next, people getting the same military benefits as me with out putting on the boots? People always want something for nothing I guess.
The PACS solution will be extreme in America in years to come.I oppose the PACS solution because I think it's unfair. I don't see why people want the benefits of marriage but don't want to actually go through what marriage is all about.That is a legal union,which emphasizes love,respect for one another,till death them part.I hate this civil union issue because, some people who favor civil union over marriage right are openning the doors to straight couples entering into civil union so that they can get the benefit alloted,without actually getting married.Civil union will now lower the overall marriage rate.Take for example,who can stop two straight friends from filing for a civil union in other to get work related benefits in a state.Its high time they stop this policy because it does not grant everyone thesame right.
Honey…baby…we’ve been together now for a year and a half and I really love you (I think, cough, cough) will you umm… be my Civil union umm… what the heck would you even call that? lol
Although kind of comical, I honestly think that as bad as a civil union contract sounds, especially to the older generations, it might not be so bad after all. With divorce rates skyrocketing in the U.S. a somewhat liberal approach to the ways in which our society looks at marriage might be just the thing we need. I don’t know for sure if I can say that I would be excited about it, but given the alternative of divorce, suddenly it doesn’t look so bad. Many couples struggle over finances and with neither having to worry about the other leaving them high and dry, more time could be spent actually enjoying each other’s company.
In a way I do oppose of PACS solution. It is somewhat odd and stechy if it doesnt go as plan. I feel that its not right to marry by papers. I feel that the PACS solution is giving that to the socity. If it spreads then I think socity wouldnt know who is married or how there going to consider themselves. Its giving people the easier way out of life if they didnt love the other person.
Its sad to read such an article about a new "solution" of getting married. Love is love, dont tamper with it and it feels PACS is doing that..
I am confused about this. I guess this PACS thing is for both men and women who want to save their assets before they get divorced if they happen to get a divorce. this is another type of prenuptial agreement. If someone thinks the marriage is probably not going to last before they get married then they should not get married at all. marriage is a lifelong commitment. some people surprisingly do not now that. This PACS thing gives people a free way out of marriage. This changes the perspective of marriage. If you do not want to get married then don't. If you do be ready to stay committed to your loved one no matter what.
I think the times of today in the U.S. is more than ready for something like this. Divorce rates in 2002 where annouced as 43% to 50% according to the national health center for health statisctics. Those numbers dont sound like marriage is vary sacred does it? The divorce rate has been steadily declining since the 70's, but I think those people who choose the benefit of the PACS solution are probably more fit to arrive to it as a good replacement for marriage.
I personally dont know if I would support it or not, but im sure people who do can probably make it work better than those who get married.
I dont really care much for religion, so im all for this. It might not sound great. When im ready i know id get married and not a civil union. I dont see why they shouldn't be able to seeing as things happened and you get better benefits then a marriage. Who care who knows about who is married if theres a couple that live to gather and haven't gotten married and have kids then its just like married but without a ring and piece of paper.
I can definitely see something of the PACS solution happening in the US. Men and women are on a more equal playing field for earning incomes, which brings more financial independence. Also, I do not see anything wrong with a solution of this sort. If two partners deem it necessary and suitable for their lifestyle and the future of their family to have an agreement not solely based on traditonal marriages, then it should be their prerogative to do so. It saves money in the long run and a lot of stress. To say that Civil unions are only for gay couples would discriminate the other side. If two persons, regardless of orientation, want to legally marry, let them. If two persons, regardless of orientation, want a civil union, let them. It only affects the couple, so it should not bother any other parties.
I can't seem to grasp the logic behind all this. Ok, so we have homosexuals that are fighting an endless battle to achieve the right to marry the one they love, and then we have straight people that would rather just get a "half-marriage" because it's easier if they decide to split. Homosexuals are refused the opportunity to marry even though many of them are fully committed to staying with the same person the rest of their life. They take marriage just as seriously as anyone else would. But on the other hand, straight people are givin the choice to go with this PACS system like it's not as serious as a true marriage. In my opinion, this is just another obstacle the gay community must battle with as far as gaining the respect they deserve and being aloud to marry.
I disagree with the PACS solution, I think its just another way out of marriage. So your basically married but not really married? Why would people get the same rights as married people when there not actually married? Thats not fair! Marriage is suppose to be forever not a couple years or even months and thats it. I don't like the fact that one spouse can just go and end the marriage just like that without the other person agreeing. sometimes people do stuff out of anger and what happens when you go and say you don't want to be married anymore and later on you regret it. This whole thing is just an excuse out of marriage.
I have to oppose the PACS solution. There getting the benefits of being married without actually being married. does that even make any sense. Like some other comments left by others. if you alow for this PACS solution how will you know if someone is married for love or for the benefits of being married. sounds like a scam to me. Let me marry someone just to benefit from it. I dont agree with this at all. NOPE
I do not support the PACS, because I believe that if a couple is wanting to take their relationship to the next level, then the only answer is marriage. A marriage is more than just a union of man an woman, a marriage is also the union of God with that man and woman to become one. If the couple does a PACS that is a state and nationally recognized the union, they still have to do a traditional marriage so that their union would be recognized by God. A marriage is the only way to get a union that is recognized by all.
I think this is a good idea. If you are starting a business and want to incorporate then there are different options that work better for liability, protection, taxes, etc. The civil union I think also provides another option if one doesn't want to go the marriage route. Since so many marriages fail, unfortunately, the civil union allows for a clean break without the legal implications and loss of property. Of course one may argue that it isn't as true a commitment as marriage. I feel it's a more progressive choice and I suppose you could always "upgrade" to the legal marriage route if things are going well and you can sort-of restructure your union/marriage like you would restructure a business. I know this is a strange analogy but it just has its similarities I suppose.
i dont agree with PACS you are either marry or not theres no in between. they are getting the same benefits and rights as marry couples but they are not even marry.!
I believe that they should allow PACS because it is safer for marriages. I was married once before and it didn't cost very much to get married and it cost alot to get divorsed. My ex-wife was at fault for the divorse because she cheated on me and got pregnant while I was in Iraq and since I filed for divorse I had to pay around $2000 dollars to get divorsed. In todays society I think the divorse rate outweighs the marriage rate so I think they need to come up with some kind of sollution to make divorses a lot less costly and stressful
A couple is a couple. Who defines what is love, and who is to say that a "civil union" is unacceptable? Who is to say whom the "misfit" is? Dont you think that there are way too many other issues to think about than to waste time and money (your tax dollars) on what people do behind closed doors? Married, not married, who cares? Lets try to just be nice and focus on things that are important (simply making the world a better and more peaceful place for future generations). Why dont the people that live the alternative lifestyles qualify for the same benefits? Why shouldnt there be a middle ground between dating and marriage? WHY?
The PbACS solution just sounds like a insult to all the couples that are in love enough to be married by a higher statue. It seems the "love" in these peoples aggrement may not be able to grow founder and more serious because in they are not obligated in a way. If anything fails in the relationship they dont have to attepmt to work it out because they can be over and done with it within minutes, the same way they joined in.
Guys
I see a trend from your responses. The majority are againsts it. Some for it. Some in middle ground. And those of you who have been divorced, are passionately for it.
If you are disagreeing due to an image of the "ideal" marriage, it's a weak argument. It's always a nice idea, and if you find it, more power to you. However, if we look at the problem realistically, solutions such as PACS may be appropriate. You can absolutely go into a marriage with every intention of abiding by your vows, but that does not mean things can't go sour. Then you can argue all you want that love should see you through it, get counseling, etc etc...but there are issues that just cannot be resolved, as well as very unhealthy relationships.
I think that PACS is a great idea.
I do not think that it is some easier form for people to escape their responsibilities, either. I have seen my father go through two messy divorces, had he been in a program like this, it would have been much easier and clean-cut. And no, he was not trying to escape some sort of responsibility, or doing this just so he could see other people, the marriages had both gone bad by different means and even then divorce had been a last-straw, last resort type instance.
Maybe it can be a half-way, as well. Marriage being the next step up, and as many people have said... this would be much cheaper than a divorce or wedding/marriage. A ring or expensive licenses had never assured and guaranteed anyone that their significant other was not going to cheat on them, turn out to be a nut job, or turn out to have some kind of dark, off-putting secret you might end up unearthing one day.
I also feel that the argument of 'love' is such Bull, these days. The phrase is used so often and loosely, that is uncommon that one person would mean the same thing when they said it to another, as there are many interpretations of this word. There are some issues and torments that many people do not need to just "tough out" and "let love handle it", in many cases, it's very unhealthy.
To be totally honest I could care less about civil unions. To me it’s just a bunch of crap that the gay and lesbian community has thought of so that they can have benefits when their significant other dies. I don’t care about this new law that they are trying to pas because it wouldn’t affect me because I do not fall under the homosexual category. If that’s what they want and it would make their lives better then by all means government pass it. The only thing that would get me upset would be if I’d have to call my marriage a civil union, and that to me is not right. So as long as my marriage can be called a marriage and not a civil union then I’m ok with it.
Well the united states is all about freedom and rights but I don’t think the civil union would hold up. The issue of religion would come up as always when talking about marriage. Civil union breaks the whole tradition of marriage and there would be a lot of people who would have a problem with that. Civil unions were made for people getting together from the same sex but if heterosexual people start doing it because its safer than an actual marriage more and more people will do civil unions instead of actual marriages. I am kind of neutral on the topic because depending on the person a civil union might be a better option than actual marriage but if you’re the type who is heavily religious and marriage is sacred to you than you would go down that road.
In my opinion, a PACS solution will add to the divorce rates in this country because couples will come in with a very hesitant mindset. When you think of all that can go wrong in a relationship and believe that you need to be on the safe end when it comes to divorce you simply are not ready for a lifelong commitment. To me, it almost seems like its a great way to cheat the system. You get great benefits, can terminate the marriage easily, and don't have obligations to your partner after a divorce? It seems like people are forgetting the true meaning behind love and marriage. What example are we setting for our young and the rest of the world? Marriage is not something that should be taken lightly, and by offering a variation to marriage that is tailored specifically for the easy way out, we are losing touch with the true meaning of love and commitment.
I honestly don’t see the point in doing something like this. It takes away so much from an actual marriage. If someone is wiling to only do it half way, they might as well not do it at all. It’s just an easy way out. What kind of an example are we setting for our children if their mom and dad live together but don't love each other enough to actually commit to marriage? A marriage is a life long commitment. Not something you can just say ok this isn’t working and now we have to go our separate ways. It’s selfish.
If a man and a woman decide that they want to get married then they're making a life long commitment. There is no in between with marriage therefore there should not be allowed the same rewards as people who made that commitment before God. So, those
who want the benefits of married couple, should get totally committed and that goes for same sex relationships as well. I'm tired of people coming up with easy solutions to their little bickers. Work it out like grown ups and grow from it.
I would have to disagree with the PACS solution, because it is breaking the importance of marriage. when couples decide to marry they are making it known they want to be different. If non-married couples are given the same benifts as married ones there would be nothing spcial about marriage, and slowly society would find it pointless to be married.
In my opinion the PACS solution is a free ticket to divorse. Its totaly and completly unfair to allow unmarried couples to have the same benefits as married couples! marriage is not a game or something to be played around with. marrige is a lifelong commitment. I think that that the PACS solution is teaching our kids that marrige is not that valuable anymore and there is no need for commitments..
Post a Comment