It’s interesting the way marriage equality is playing out in parts of Western Europe.  In several countries, marriage-like rights/arrangements were granted to same-sex couples long before they came to the United States, but these arrangements were often open to opposite-sex couples as well.  Whereas in the United States, the push is actually toward preserving the institution of marriage by opening it to all committed couples, it seems that in Western Europe, couples, straight and gay, are opting for the more “no-frills” option of civil unions, which is leading to an overall decline in marriage rates.

Here’s what’s up in France right now:

The Constitutional Council, France’s highest court, has agreed to rule on a case of two women who have conceived children by artificial insemination. The women want to call their relationship a marriage and have it recognized as such.

The French have resisted formal legal recognition of same-sex relationships more than other Western European democracies, despite its historic liberalism and anti-clericalism. The women’s lawyer, Emmanuel Ludot, told the newspaper Le Figaro, he is arguing, “It’s not a matter of asking the Constitutional Council if it will make a pronouncement for or against homosexual marriage. It’s necessary to be more subtle.”

Here’s the thing, though:

Civil solidarity pacts, a form of registered domestic partnership, were enacted in 1999 for both same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex couples. Couples who enter into a PACS contract are afforded most of the legal protections and responsibilities of marriage.

As the institution of marriage declines, more and more heterosexual couples are availing themselves of these pacts. In December, the New York Times reported that “French couples are increasingly shunning traditional marriages and opting instead for civil unions, to the point that there are now two civil unions for every three marriages.”

The article goes on to note that the pacts are expected to outnumber marriages before too long in France, which will make it the “first post-marriage Western nation.”

It would seem that, given the inevitable tide of history, our ideological opponents who weep and wail about how they’re “pro-marriage” and not anti-gay should be our biggest champions, if marriage is actually what they give a damn about.

[It is not.  They're simply motivated by animus against gay people.  Oh well.]

According to The New York Times:

When France created its system of civil unions in 1999, it was heralded as a revolution in gay rights, a relationship almost like marriage, but not quite. No one, though, anticipated how many couples would make use of the new law. Nor was it predicted that by 2009, the overwhelming majority of civil unions would be between straight couples.

The numbers are surprising:

In 2000, just one year after the passage of the law, more than 75 percent of civil unions were signed between heterosexual couples. That trend has only strengthened since then: of the 173,045 civil unions signed in 2009, 95 percent were between heterosexual couples.

Whatever their reasons, and they vary widely, French couples are increasingly shunning traditional marriages and opting instead for civil unions, to the point that there are now two civil unions for every three marriages.

It seems to me that conservatives in America should embrace marriage equality. If not, civil unions will be the alternative and it is unlikely that they will remain popular in large metropolitan areas with only gay people.

He’s referring to it as “our boycott,” which has me worried that he’s teetering on the precipice between his usual insanity and all-out, strait-jacket required, mental illness.  Also, he is glad he is boycotting McDonalds, because it’s keeping him from getting fatter.  Also, he dares the gay community to “negate our boycott,” but warns that we will get fat if we do.

This is all over that French “Come as You Are” commercial, by the way.  He is very mad at McDonalds for promoting the “disease-producing lifestyle” of gayness to French teenagers.  Apparently no one ever taught Peter how to put on a damn condom.

To sum up:  Peter LaBarbera, not currently eating at McDonalds, mad about a French teevee commercial, wishes the gays would negate his boycott so he could be the skinny girl in school for the first time, like, ever.

Happy Sunday funday!

Four nations have taken preliminary action against the brewing human-rights disaster in Uganda.

As previously reported, passage is expected in January of a law requiring execution of Ugandan HIV-positive homosexuals and long prison sentences for pastors and family members who refuse to turn in someone they know to be gay. The law would also ban all speech that discusses homosexuality in a neutral or tolerant fashion, thus inhibiting health care and sound science, and it would effectively prohibit human-rights advocacy and legal defense of LGBT persons.

The penalty for homosexual orientation in Uganda is life imprisonment.

In Britain, according to PinkNews.co.uk, a spokeswoman from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said:

We are concerned by the introduction of a private member’s bill on anti-homosexuality in Uganda.

Adoption of the bill could do serious damage to efforts to tackle HIV and its criminalisation of organisations that support homosexuality could, in theory, encompass most donor agencies and international NGOs.

The UK, alongside our EU partners, has raised our concerns about the draft bill and LGBT rights more broadly with the government of Uganda, including with the prime minister and several other ministers, the Ugandan Human Rights Commission, and senior officials from the Ugandan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

We will continue to track the passage of the bill and to lobby against its introduction.

France’s foreign ministry released a statement:

France expresses deep concern regarding the bill currently before the Ugandan parliament.

France reiterates its commitment to the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the fight against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

In the United States, four members of Congress wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning that the legislation had severe implications for the freedom and safety of gay people and for freedom of speech and public health in Uganda.

However, In Australia, the national senate declined to condemn the death-penalty and family-imprisonment legislation. According to the Sydney Star Observer, Joe Ludwig of the Labor Party told senators it was inappropriate for the Senate to hear such a resolution.

The Government’ view is that complex matters of international relations should not be considered in the Senate by means of formal motions. It is counterproductive for motions of this kind to single out one country,” he said, before restating the Government’ opposition to laws criminalising GLBT people.

As recently as last month … the Australian ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva noted the importance of eliminating discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Star Observer notes that the death-penalty legislation “is supported by the Ugandan Muslim Supreme Council, as well as the Orthodox, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist and Anglican churches in Uganda.”

Now would be an appropriate time for the Episcopal Church USA to appeal to the Anglican Communion for an emphatic condemnation of antigay violence, execution, and censorship in Uganda.