thinkuming

Marriage Lite

The brouhaha over gay marriage isn't limited to the U.S.; France is now wrestling with a prime example of the Law of Unintended Consequences: Straight Couples Use French Civil Unions Law Created For Homosexuals

There is at least some measure of equality in the situation. What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. But it sounds so science-fictiony, practical in many respects, yet empty in so many others. And what about children? They will be your children forever, civil contract or no. What effect will it have on them? Are there any protections for them, in the new law?

I suppose marriage as a concept means different things to different people. My own family is tightly knit, with many examples of long, successful marriages - the lesson taught to me since childhood is when things get tough, you work harder, and you get through it. It's not something to be cleanly set aside when you stop having fun.

And yet, one of my siblings is now in the process of ending a marriage. The news came as a tremendous shockwave, leaving everyone stunned. Despite twenty years, two kids, and extended counseling, the relationship is ending. We seem to flutter about, helplessly, like trapped moths - there's nothing in our experience that has prepared us for this. All we can do is keep loving her, one another, and everyone involved. It's horrible. But I can't imagine them exchanging the past twenty years of marriage for a simple civil union contract.

-------

The full text:

Straight Couples Use French Civil Unions Law Created For Homosexuals

France resolved its debate over same-sex marriage several years ago by creating civil unions. But the law has had unexpected effects.

What began as a way to provide some legal protection for people in homosexual relationships has become a real alternative for heterosexual couples in France, thousands of whom come to municipal offices to sign "civil pacts of solidarity," or PACS, rather than get married.

Now We Have Rights

The ceremony itself takes just a few minutes. The couple goes to a court and assures the clerk they are not married to anyone else. After a few more basic questions, the papers are signed and the PACS is official.

"Now we have rights," a woman in a same-sex union says, "which we didn't have a few hours ago."

Under the civil pact, each partner is eligible for the other's work benefits. And after three years, they can get the same tax breaks as married couples. Ending the PACS can be as quick and easy as signing one.

"It is not necessary to divorce," says Daniel Borrillo, a legal specialist. "It is only necessary to inform the authorities that you decided to terminate the contract."

If there's a dispute, one party gives notice, and three months later, it's over.

The PACS law was hugely controversial when it was going through the French parliament in the late 1990s. Opponents of the law clashed with its supporters.

The law passed, but only after it was expanded to make heterosexuals eligible for civil unions as well. Otherwise, some argued, the law would be discriminatory.

It turned out to be a big change.

Marriage Attitudes

Some straight couples opting for the civil pact are older and have married before, but most are young couples.

In a country with a divorce rate of 38 percent, where some 40 percent of children are born out of wedlock, many consider marriage an obsolete institution.

"My parents got divorced," one woman says. "I don't regard marriage as sacred."

So, a law initially written for gay couples has evolved into a sort of marriage light for straight couples.

"It was the need of the gay community," says Pascal De Bodard of the Gay and Lesbian Center of Paris. "But at the end of the day, it was to the benefit of the whole French population."

Big Brother Bouncer

The "cataloging" of individuals seems to be increasing. I can understand the need on the part of the businesses in this article (Pubs, Clubs Use High-Tech ID System to Track Troublemakers), but I strongly object to their retaining personal identity information such as birthdays. If the system works by identifying the face, then all it needs is the face. If the bar is going to go as far as requiring personal information, they might as well issue membership cards of their own in order for patrons to gain admission.

I assume they collect the birthdate in order to validate that the customer is of legal drinking age. But really, they don't need to retain that information. An underage patron can be flagged as underaged, with no mention of the actual birthday. When they reach legal age, they simply tell the doorman that they've had a birthday and show identification proving it; the system gets updated, and wha-la, they're granted entry to all businesses using it.

-------

The full text to which I'm objecting:

Pubs, Clubs Use High-Tech ID System to Track Troublemakers

Soon you may be asked for more than your identification when you go into a bar or nightclub. In Vancouver, Canada, you could also be asked to smile for a camera.

The Vigilance ID check system was developed by Vancouver's TreoScope Technologies. It works by taking your picture as your ID is swiped through a card reader. Your name, birth date, and diver's license number are transferred from the magnetic strip on the back of your card to a computer database where that info, along with your photo, are stored.

"The idea behind it was to create a system that would protect patrons and establishments from people out to make the nightlife unsafe," TreoScope co-owner Owen Cameron says. "It's a 24-hour doorman that never forgets a name or a face."

If you cause trouble, not only can you get kicked out of the club, but bar owners can go through the photos, find you, and red flag you for future visits.

Cameron says those running the system in their establishments can also attach reports to your name and face ? a regular rap sheet for whatever you may have done wrong, from fighting and excessive drinking to drink-tampering.

Rowdy Bar-Hopper Stopper

But if you draw a red flag, don't think you can just go down the street to the next bar or even across town. Every bar that's hooked into the electronic system can find out if you've caused trouble someplace else.

Genesis Security (www.GenesisSecurity.com) is responsible for running the system day-to-day.

"You could have a troublemaker at one bar, send [his information] off to all bars on the system, and the bar would be aware of his history," Genesis' Dave Sukic says.

It's then up to each bar to decide whether to let the patron inside.

Tristan Vanin is the general manager of Vancouver hot spot the Plaza Club. Vanin says the club felt it needed to tighten security in the wake of increasing violence in the area.

"It all starts with the front door and who you are letting in," he says. "It only takes one gunshot or one act of violence, and it'll ruin your club night."

Another Slap in the Face of Privacy?

The Vigilance system, which can also identify fake IDs, was designed to keep patrons out of harm's way, according to the company. But the security network is raising eyebrows among privacy advocates.

Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, is concerned the information could be used for other purposes.

"Whenever you're collecting information and tying it to their identity, then you have all sorts of problems ... as in, what are the people who get that information going to do with it?" Tien asks.

Genesis Security insists the information will not be used for marketing or any other purposes. It says the information will be kept discrete.

"It's not being released to anybody," Dave Sukic insists. "That information is sent to us directly and will only be released for court purposes."

The information, he says, could be kept for up to two years for legal reasons.

Shock, horror: sex doesn't sell

It is the news that a particular kind of movie mogul has been dreading: sex no longer sells. Films containing explicit sex or nudity are earning less on average than more wholesome movies.

The article goes on to point out a number of aspects to the statistics that indicate the study has significant control flaws. Still, it's an interesting -- and encouraging -- theory.

Americans were more likely to enjoy films with a religious or moral content because Christian belief remained much more entrenched in the US than in countries such as Australia and Britain.

While the US is generally less accepting of non-Christian religions, I'm not sure that's the same thing as saying that Christian belief is more entrenched, particularly given the drop-off in church attendance in the more traditional denominations. Certainly, the South and the various Baptist branches are enthusiastic bible-thumpers, but representative of the country as a whole? I'm unconvinced.

"We've certainly seen that with the box office success of The Passion of the Christ in America, which is unlikely to be repeated [in Britain]," [film critic and columnist Will Self] said. "We are a secular country, thank God."

Now THAT is a truly interesting statement, coming from a citizen of Britain -- where the Queen is still the head of the state-sanctioned church. I'd love to discuss it with the columnist in more detail...

The rise in popularity of films that are moral in tone looks set to continue after the success of The Passion. Even though the dialogue is in Latin and Aramaic, it has grossed almost $US400 million since its release last month.

Which is mind-boggling, given the American public's normal reaction to non-English language films. Releasing a film with subtitles is normally the kiss of death, resulting in instant relegation solely to art house screens.

Broadcaster and critic Sheridan Morley believes audiences have been tiring of action thrillers. "I am surprised by these findings because they go against all the wisdom of recent Hollywood," he said. "It just shows, once again, how out of touch Hollywood is with what the audience wants.

"Films have been totally mechandised in recent years and are no longer about people. Now we've got so high-tech that we've lost the sense of real human relationships. Cinema needs to get back to people."

Amen, brother.

Zanzibar is very far...

Zanzibar's parliament late Tuesday unanimously passed a bill outlawing homosexuality, with prison terms of up to 25 years for gay relationships. [...] If the bill becomes law, a person found guilty of sodomizing a minor will receive an automatic life sentence. The penalty for a homosexual relationship between men will be a 25-year sentence, and the punishment for a lesbian relationship will be a seven-year sentence.

Completely aside from the basic premise of the law, which is so patently asinine as to defy comment, this schedule of punishments makes no sense. While I support penalties of some sort for inappropriate contact (homo- OR heterosexual) with a minor, I don't get the gender disparity in the cases between consenting adults. Is it simply that, culturally, women in Zanzibar (and their actions) are of little or no consequence in comparison to men? Or is there something even more insidious at work?

Searching

"She left behind her horse, her dental retainer and other prized possessions."

It would be a wonderful opening line for a novel...if I weren't quoting it from the Doe Network.

I came across the Doe site during my normal lunchtime browsing. Its concept intrigued me. Actually, it always has; my interest in shows like CSI and Without A Trace stems from the same source, as does my interest in genealogy. Life is a mystery - who we are, where we come from, where we go during our lives, and what clues we leave behind on our journey, for others to later find and puzzle over.

There's obviously a much darker side to the mystery in cases like Rachael's. The horrible sinking feeling in the pit of the stomach, lasting every day, every month, every year since the event itself. The not knowing.

People can't just disappear off the face of the planet. And yet, they do. Even in small states, small towns, like mine. And when it's in a small community, it becomes all the more horrific - because the community is vividly personal. It's not a formless mass of humanity, from which all types of crimes slink out into the world. It's faces and names that you know, neighbors with names and families and shared histories. It's friends and their siblings, and the cousins of colleagues.

Someone, somewhere, knows the answer. That knowledge is almost as frightening as the event itself.

Oink

I'm strongly in favor of educational projects and research, almost to a fault. But even I have to question why Iowa is an appropriate location for a rainforest...particularly on the national nickel.

It's not like there's no value to these endeavors. It's just that my tax dollars have more important things to do than to spend -

• $50,000,000 for an indoor rainforest project in Coralville, Iowa added by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). The crown jewel of this year's Pig Book, the rainforest was the brainchild of Ted Townsend (heir to Townsend meat-packing fortune), who came up with the idea when contemplating his legacy on a treadmill. Former Gov. Bob Ray believes this tropical boondoggle will solve the state's "demographic problems" by drawing more people to move to Iowa.
• $3,000,000 for the First Tee Program, an initiative of the World Golf Foundation. "The focus is to give young people of all backgrounds an opportunity to develop, through golf and character education, life-enhancing values such as honesty, integrity, and sportsmanship."
• $1,000,000 for the Institute of International Sport to prevent crime by promoting "ethical behavior and good sportsmanship on an international basis."

What happened to "one thousand points of light"? Aren't these the sort of projects that the Bush boys deemed the responsibility of local communities and charities, rather than the federal government? Why are we spending federal moneys on an international sports organization, when we can't even pay for my grandmother's medical care? Why are we teaching kids to play golf, when we're struggling for funds to teach them to read? Why are we paying for an artificial rainforest that was dreamed up by some rich guy who wants to leave a legacy? If it's his legacy, shouldn't he be paying for it? And why on the face of God's green Earth do we even need an artificial rainforest, when the real ones are in such greater need of our support?

I'm afraid to read the full report. My shingles nerve will implode from the stress.

Can we walk there?

"I think we could be in the rather frustrating position of having indirect evidence of life... but not being absolutely certain and not having any prospect of becoming absolutely certain in the foreseeable future." - Barrie Jones

My sister's eldest child was about four, I think. I was babysitting for the evening, and had already tucked his little brother in bed for the night. Curled up on the sofa with the four-year-old, I slowly turned the pages of a children's book about the universe, as he studied the pictures intently. He wanted to know all about the planets. Why were some bigger than others? Why were they different colors? Why didn't they have air we could breathe? But it was when I told him that those bright stars in our sky were really other suns, very, very far away, and that some of them had planets of their own, that the discussion got tough.

"Could we walk to that star?" he asked, pointing at a corner of the illustration.

"No, it's too far away."

"Could we see all those other planets?"

"No, there are too many. It would take a HUGE amount of time." ("Huge" was his favorite word then. Anything too large to describe or fully comprehend was considered huge.)

"Even in my whole life?"

"Even in your whole life."

He didn't like that answer, and his little face darkened. It wasn't fair. He wanted to see all those places, learn about them. (Of course, so did I.) I tried mollifying him by invoking his parents' strong religious doctrines.

"Isn't it wonderful, that God is so great, he can create a universe big enough that we could never explore it all?"

He didn't buy it. I couldn't blame him: neither did I.