From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 18:41:24 +0200

BELGIUM: PARTNERSHIP BILL PROGRESS 

[free English translation  by Alan Reekie of] "Le contrat de vie
commun lierait des amis, des parents" (The contract for living
together could [also] bind friends and relatives) by Michelle
Lamensch, in "Le Soir", 19 July 1996 

The Justice Committee of the Belgian Chamber of Representatives
began its examination of the Bill intended to define a contract
for living together on the evening of Wednesday (17 July 1996).
The examination was laborious, because,  as a Bill dealing with
ethical matters, the text presented jointly by MPs Serge
Moureaux (Fr. Socialist), Vincent Decroly (Fr. Green), Franz
Lozie (Fl. Green) and Olivier Maingain (Fr. Liberal-FDF), must
obtain a 'green light' from the Federal government coalition
(consisting of both the French-speaking and Flemish Christian
Social and Socialist Parties). And while the French-speaking
Socialist Party supports its MP and the Flemish Socialist Party
is in favour of registered partnerships, both Christian Social
Parties are divided on this issue and are delaying the
discussions. According to Serge Moureaux, this Bill is the
outcome of "an urgent request" from the homosexual community
which is "fighting to obtain social recognition" and is also
intended to protect hetereosexual couples who are living
together out of a philosophical conviction that free love is
preferable to the holy wedlock that binds the partners together
for "what seems like eternity". The contract for living together
would enable two persons to bind theselves together, regardless
of gender, age or family relationship. So the partners could be
a brother and sister, uncle and nephew or any other family
members who would otherwise be liable to suffer financially
under the the provisions of inheritance law. And indeed for that
reason, the only case of persons being forbidden to bind
themselves by such a contract would be where one is directly
descended from the other. Furthermore, any unrelated couple,
such as two gay men or lesbians, could sign such a contract,
which would not require sexual fidelity but impose duties of
co-habitation, mutual assistance, and shared responsibility for
the household expenses. Each partner would benefit from the same
rights regarding healthcare, insurance against illness or
accidents, and pensions that spouses already enjoy. And the same
immigration rules would apply to a Belgian citizens' registered
partner as to his or her spouse. Official recognition of this
"contrat de vie commune" would be granted upon registration of
the particulars, including a certified detailed inventory of
each partner's assets, at their local Town Hall. It would thus
correspond closely to a "marriage with separate assets", except
that the contract could be terminated by either partner sending
a registered letter, which need not state any particular
grounds, to the Registrar. After such a termination, the
partners would retain their existing right to joint occupation
of their home, and where one had been dependent on the other
(s)he could apply [to a Court] for maintenance from the other.
In the absence of individual title, the partners would be deemed
joint owners of any property that had been acquired during the
partnership. In the event of death, the survivor would be
entitled to a lifetime right of usage of the property that had
been occupied jointly as their main residence, and to the dead
partner's estate on the same basis as a spouse. Homosexual
couples would be able to gain the most from the availability of
such a contract, because unmarried couples living as "man and
wife" can already jointly sign property rental contracts, make
gifts to each other and define their mutual responsibilities
during the period they live together and thereafter by a valid
private contract. This Bill, and that intended to provide
protection against discrimination on the grounds of sexual
orientation or relationship, tabled by the MPs Landuyt (Fl.
Socialist), Willems (Fl. Christian Social party), de 't Serclaes
(Fr. Christian Social party) Moureaux (Fr. Socialist) and Vande
Casteele (Fl. Volksunie) could be examined by the members of
Parliament in September. Serge Moureaux concluded "The Flemish
Christian Social party will have to clarify its position. There
is a potential majority in favour of both Bills; the monolithic
Christian Social parties could indeed block them, but there is a
risk of a political battle if those parties want to make it an
issue of governmental principle." 

(Published in EuroLetter 43)