Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon La nuptialité de même sexe : la France dans l’Europe Comment comprendre l’usage fréquent du Pacs par les couples de même sexe ? I’d like to share some results and some research hypotheses on same sex unions in Europe. More especially: How same sex union registration laws got adopted in Europe What may be hidden behind the different legal status of registered unions How to understand the huge differences in same sex union registration so far Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon

Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon le législatif un processus en trois temps Here is the timeline. I’d like to make two observations. First: the acceleration of the process. It started slowly in the 90s, accelerated around 2000 and then again after 2004. I colored the three moments in red, blue and green. Second observation: except for Finland, the spread is geographically extremely regular. It starts in the Scandinavian countries (first wave), then it moves down to the heart of Western Europe (second wave), and from there into the margins of Western Europe (third wave). What does it mean? It means that the same sex union registration laws were not just the outcome of local political circumstances inside of each country. Looking from an international European point of view, domestic circumstances seem to have been secondary, driven by some kind of autonomous social process. The question now is: what is this process? I considered three hypotheses, taken from literature. Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon

Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon Mariage / Homo-aversion Indice The first hypothesis is on social acceptance of homosexuality in general and of same sex marriage in particular. Is more acceptance related to earlier same sex union legislation? For data reasons, this graph shows social acceptance in 2003, but the ranking has been quite stable over the last decades. The correlation is far from perfect but the hypothesis should not be rejected. The second hypothesis is on family diversification. As indicator, I took the proportion of births out of marriage. The year 1999 is the central year of the period we are studying. This hypothesis can not be rejected either. Both are indicators for new family values and practices. So we may combine them. Now, the combined model, as you see here, gives amazing predicting values, explaining more than 80% of the date of same sex union legislation. What does this mean? It means that transforming family values and practices seem to be one the main social forces behind same sex union legislation. They seem to be the necessary conditions, maybe even sufficient conditions, for obtaining same sex union recognition. Date législation versus mariage / homo-aversion indice (R=0,92) Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon 3/14 3

‘Nuptialité’ homosexuelle en 2010 Mariages pour 100 000 hbts Slovénie 0,2 Hongrie 0,8 Rép. Tchèque 1.8 Allemagne 2.7 Portugal 3,8 Islande 4,1 Norvège 5.3 Suède 5,8 Finlande 6,0 Danemark 7,4 Espagne 7,6 Europe de l’Ouest Autriche 8,4 Suisse 9,3 Belgique 10,0 Royaume Uni 10,3 Pays-Bas 11,1 France 14,0 Here is the timeline. I’d like to make two observations. First: the acceleration of the process. It started slowly in the 90s, accelerated around 2000 and then again after 2004. I colored the three moments in red, blue and green. Second observation: except for Finland, the spread is geographically extremely regular. It starts in the Scandinavian countries (first wave), then it moves down to the heart of Western Europe (second wave), and from there into the margins of Western Europe (third wave). What does it mean? It means that the same sex union registration laws were not just the outcome of local political circumstances inside of each country. Looking from an international European point of view, domestic circumstances seem to have been secondary, driven by some kind of autonomous social process. The question now is: what is this process? I considered three hypotheses, taken from literature. 4

Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon « En attente » Slovénie, Hongrie, Rép. Tchèque, Allemagne, Autriche ?, Suisse ? Slovenia Czech Rep Germany « Pas maintenant » - peur coming out incontrôlé - refus statut discriminatoire The first hypothesis is on social acceptance of homosexuality in general and of same sex marriage in particular. Is more acceptance related to earlier same sex union legislation? For data reasons, this graph shows social acceptance in 2003, but the ranking has been quite stable over the last decades. The correlation is far from perfect but the hypothesis should not be rejected. The second hypothesis is on family diversification. As indicator, I took the proportion of births out of marriage. The year 1999 is the central year of the period we are studying. This hypothesis can not be rejected either. Both are indicators for new family values and practices. So we may combine them. Now, the combined model, as you see here, gives amazing predicting values, explaining more than 80% of the date of same sex union legislation. What does this mean? It means that transforming family values and practices seem to be one the main social forces behind same sex union legislation. They seem to be the necessary conditions, maybe even sufficient conditions, for obtaining same sex union recognition. Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon 5/11 5

Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon « Peu intéressé » Norvège, Suède, Finlande Norvège Suède « Aucune raison de se marier » - protection sociale individualisée - faible homophobie sociale -- faible motivation politique Finlande The first hypothesis is on social acceptance of homosexuality in general and of same sex marriage in particular. Is more acceptance related to earlier same sex union legislation? For data reasons, this graph shows social acceptance in 2003, but the ranking has been quite stable over the last decades. The correlation is far from perfect but the hypothesis should not be rejected. The second hypothesis is on family diversification. As indicator, I took the proportion of births out of marriage. The year 1999 is the central year of the period we are studying. This hypothesis can not be rejected either. Both are indicators for new family values and practices. So we may combine them. Now, the combined model, as you see here, gives amazing predicting values, explaining more than 80% of the date of same sex union legislation. What does this mean? It means that transforming family values and practices seem to be one the main social forces behind same sex union legislation. They seem to be the necessary conditions, maybe even sufficient conditions, for obtaining same sex union recognition. Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon 6/11 6

Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon « Fierté » Danemark, Pays-Bas, Royaume-Uni, Suisse Switzerland Denmark United Kingdom Netherlands « Fier de se marier » - tournant personnel - tournant pour société -- fierté nationale The first hypothesis is on social acceptance of homosexuality in general and of same sex marriage in particular. Is more acceptance related to earlier same sex union legislation? For data reasons, this graph shows social acceptance in 2003, but the ranking has been quite stable over the last decades. The correlation is far from perfect but the hypothesis should not be rejected. The second hypothesis is on family diversification. As indicator, I took the proportion of births out of marriage. The year 1999 is the central year of the period we are studying. This hypothesis can not be rejected either. Both are indicators for new family values and practices. So we may combine them. Now, the combined model, as you see here, gives amazing predicting values, explaining more than 80% of the date of same sex union legislation. What does this mean? It means that transforming family values and practices seem to be one the main social forces behind same sex union legislation. They seem to be the necessary conditions, maybe even sufficient conditions, for obtaining same sex union recognition. Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon 7/11 7

Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon ‘Utilitaristes’ France, Belgique France Belgium « Sur mesure » - personnalisation du symbolique -- adaptabilité normative The first hypothesis is on social acceptance of homosexuality in general and of same sex marriage in particular. Is more acceptance related to earlier same sex union legislation? For data reasons, this graph shows social acceptance in 2003, but the ranking has been quite stable over the last decades. The correlation is far from perfect but the hypothesis should not be rejected. The second hypothesis is on family diversification. As indicator, I took the proportion of births out of marriage. The year 1999 is the central year of the period we are studying. This hypothesis can not be rejected either. Both are indicators for new family values and practices. So we may combine them. Now, the combined model, as you see here, gives amazing predicting values, explaining more than 80% of the date of same sex union legislation. What does this mean? It means that transforming family values and practices seem to be one the main social forces behind same sex union legislation. They seem to be the necessary conditions, maybe even sufficient conditions, for obtaining same sex union recognition. Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon 8/11 8

Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon Inclassable Espagne Spain « Pour la famille » -- peu de fierté politique - familles inclusives - fort contraste hommes-femmes The first hypothesis is on social acceptance of homosexuality in general and of same sex marriage in particular. Is more acceptance related to earlier same sex union legislation? For data reasons, this graph shows social acceptance in 2003, but the ranking has been quite stable over the last decades. The correlation is far from perfect but the hypothesis should not be rejected. The second hypothesis is on family diversification. As indicator, I took the proportion of births out of marriage. The year 1999 is the central year of the period we are studying. This hypothesis can not be rejected either. Both are indicators for new family values and practices. So we may combine them. Now, the combined model, as you see here, gives amazing predicting values, explaining more than 80% of the date of same sex union legislation. What does this mean? It means that transforming family values and practices seem to be one the main social forces behind same sex union legislation. They seem to be the necessary conditions, maybe even sufficient conditions, for obtaining same sex union recognition. Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon 9/11 9

Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon Merci Données détaillées Commentaires et Notes méthodologiques : www.banens.fr/sex.php Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon 10/11 10

Arguments pour ou contre le ‘mariage’ Pour mariage Acte d’engagement v-à-v soi-même et partenaire Déclaration envers famille, amis, collègues… Déclaration envers société et communauté Plus de droits Contre mariage Incertitude sur relation actuelle Peur de coming out incontrôlé Pas de soutien pour institution du mariage + d’obligations / - de droits Maks Banens Centre Max Weber, Université de Lyon 11/11