In France, civil unions are becoming more popular than marriage:
Some are divorced and disenchanted with marriage; others are young couples ideologically opposed to marriage, but eager to lighten their tax burdens. Many are lovers not quite ready for old-fashioned matrimony.
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.
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.
One of the primary reasons the French are avoiding marriage is because the institution is linked, in their minds, to Christianity:
In addition to their practical advantages, she said, civil unions are ideologically suited to her generation, which came of age after the social rebellions of the 1960s. “We were very free,” she said. “AIDS didn’t exist, we had the pill, we didn’t have to fight. We were the first generation to enjoy all of this.” She added, “Marriage has a side that’s very institutional and very square and religious, which didn’t fit for us.”
Though French marriages are officially concluded in civil ceremonies held in town halls, not in churches, marriage is still viewed here as a “heavy and invasive” institution with deep ties to Christianity, said Wilfried Rault, a sociologist at the National Institute for Demographic Studies.
(Via: Gene Veith)
December 30th, 2010 | 9:25 am
Sheezus, there’s a lot of stupid straight people out there.
December 30th, 2010 | 10:51 am
It’s very hard to regard France as anything but a society in decline. We see similar activity in this country, too. That sort of determined loathing of Christianity is kept within relatively marginal groups here, I think, but needs to be fought nonetheless.
Beyond that, we all know that because the French lack any positive understanding of marriage, they are vulnerable to cultural attack from exterior forces, too. Islam will be putting forth the new cultural understanding of marriage in France.
December 30th, 2010 | 12:16 pm
Mr. Carter missed a larger and more important point: all unions in France are, and have been, civil unions since the French Revolution removed legal authority to regulate marriage from the Catholic Church. Only civil marriages had legal standing, and those desiring to marry in the eyes of the Church first have to present themselves to a magistrate, who legally binds them, then to a priest, who sacramentally unites them.
This system proliferated throughout Europe in the wake of the French armies of the Napoleonic wars, and was continued in many through the 19th century and into the 20th (particularly in the former Communist states).
In a way, this is a return to the situation that pertained in the Roman Empire right down to the era of Justinian I: the state had control of the legal aspects of marriage, while the Church concerned itself solely with the sacramental aspects. As late as the 7th century, a church marriage remained just one criterion among many for determining if a marriage was legally binding. In the Eastern Empire, the Church only assumed authority over all aspects of marriage, legal and sacramental, in the 9th century, when Emperor Leo VI abolished civil marriage altogether.
Under the older system, the Church had no need to make accommodations for the social and legal complexities attendant upon marriage–divorce, remarriage, custody, adoption, property rights and so forth. These were the prerogative of the state, and the Church was therefore able to proclaim and bear witness to the sacramental theology of marriage without interference.
The Eastern Church, for instance, until the 9th century, simply did not perform second marriages, whether for widowers or divorcees, in accordance with its belief that marriage was an indissoluable, once-in-a-lifetime sacrament. Those who wished to remarry could do so, but only in a civil service. The Church then acted to reconcile those people with itself through a regime of penance (including a 2-5 period of excommunication), prayer and fasting–after which the couple would be readmitted to communion.
After the Church was given cognizant authority over all aspects of marriage, it found itself forced to confront the earthly reality that marriages break up, that spouses die, and that some people, for a variety of reasons, feel the need to remarry. It finessed the issue by creating a non-sacramental “Rite of Re-marriage”, which included most of the penitential prayers previously associated with reintegration of the remarried, and which lacked the defining feature of sacramental marriage in the Eastern Churches, the bestowing of Crowns (the sacramental rite is commonly called “Crowning in Marriage”). In this way, it was able to maintain its doctrine of the indissoluability of sacramental marriage, while also taking account of social reality and human weakness.
Elsewhere, I have written that, with the breakdown of the Constantinian settlement, it may be time for the Church to abrogate its role as legal agent of the state in the administration of marriage. This would remove any hold the state has over how the Church would define and administer the rites of marriage, and would allow the Church to preach the truth and bear witness to it without hinderance.
Let all who wish to marry go to the civil authorities. Let those who wish to be married in the eyes of God and the Church present themselves to the Church and submit to its rules and regulations. This was the arrangement known to the Fathers; it worked well for them, and it will work equally well for us.
December 30th, 2010 | 1:48 pm
@Stuart Koehl: thanks for the brief history of Western marriage. It seems to me, too, that the church will probably have to get out of the licensing of marriages now that our society is redefining marriage. I fear that churches will be facing discrimination lawsuits and the like. Leave the licensing to the state and let the churches administer the sacrament of matrimony (or whatever fits the different denominations).
My husband and I were married abroad, so we had the two ceremonies—a civil one with a magistrate, then a Catholic nuptial mass. It was a bit inconvenient, but had the benefit of keeping the legal and religious aspects clearly defined in our heads. I find that not all Americans make this distinction and that causes some confusion.
I have heard some anecdotal stories about Americans marrying in religious ceremonies (Jewish, Catholic, Episcopalian) without legal recognition. These were widowed people with religious scruples who could not afford to marry (because the women would lose their late husbands’ pensions) and did not want to live together in sin.
I don’t think these elderly people number enough to make a difference to the state, but it will be interesting to see if (when?) fiddling with marriage starts causing expensive problems. I am under the impression that increasing numbers of Americans are having children without marrying at all (legal or religious). This is where the state’s interest seems to lie.
December 30th, 2010 | 2:42 pm
With all the hoopla coming from religious conservatives these days, I can sympathize with these French attitudes. While Christianity may once have played a role in strengthening families and marriage, it seems to be doing exactly the opposite today. In many families Christian “values” function analogously to Turkish honor killings in self-righteously alienating vulnerable sons and daughters. It’s as upsetting as it is tragic. From a family values perspective I can therefore understand the sort of reservations one might have with the remaining Christian overtones in the institution of marriage.
December 30th, 2010 | 3:00 pm
“In many families Christian “values” function analogously to Turkish honor killings in self-righteously alienating vulnerable sons and daughters. It’s as upsetting as it is tragic. From a family values perspective I can therefore understand the sort of reservations one might have with the remaining Christian overtones in the institution of marriage.”
An immense load of hooey, if you ask me.
December 30th, 2010 | 3:18 pm
“An immense load of hooey, if you ask me.”
Sadly, this is all too characteristic of the way religious values function in the minds of otherwise intelligent people: as with the Pharisees of old, they blind people from perceiving the ruin they are inflicting upon the lives of others.
December 30th, 2010 | 4:10 pm
“Sadly, this is all too characteristic of the way religious values function in the minds of otherwise intelligent people: as with the Pharisees of old, they blind people from perceiving the ruin they are inflicting upon the lives of others.”
It is good to see such circumlocution these days, when the “Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name” too often becomes “The Love That Will Not Shut Its Mouth”.
December 30th, 2010 | 4:16 pm
Circumlocution? Mr. Koehl’s responses have been neither substantive nor direct.
December 30th, 2010 | 4:47 pm
Please pay no attention the man behind the curtain — that, in fact, those vulnerable sons and daughters are more likely to live that those so “fortunate” as to have secular parents — it’s really just like killing them.
December 30th, 2010 | 5:04 pm
‘While Christianity may once have played a role in strengthening families and marriage, it seems to be doing exactly the opposite today. In many families Christian “values” function analogously to Turkish honor killings in self-righteously alienating vulnerable sons and daughters.’
lol @ gay logic
December 30th, 2010 | 5:18 pm
I suppose conservative Christians can take great satisfaction in the fact that they don’t actually kill their children in their self-righteousness adherence to their religious “values”–that they instead only alienate and ostracize their sons and daughters at their most vulnerable moments. Even if their children later commit suicide, they haven’t killed them, right?
December 30th, 2010 | 5:29 pm
‘I suppose conservative Christians can take great satisfaction in the fact that they don’t actually kill their children in their self-righteousness adherence to their religious “values”’
lol is this an actual adult writing this stuff?
December 30th, 2010 | 5:47 pm
An earlier remark is again appropriate:
In this latter case , we shouldn’t assume that the commenter (Sean) is “otherwise intelligent,” nor that he takes Christianity seriously. But for those Christians who are thoughtful, isn’t it disconcerting that a person can be so dismissive about these matters? And are you aware of how prevalent these sorts of glib attitudes are among conservative Christians?
This alone should be enough to enlighten you as to why, from a family values perspective, many have reservations towards the remaining conservative Christian overtones in the institution of marriage.
December 30th, 2010 | 5:54 pm
come on, bro. this is First Things. gaudy sentimental appeals poorly masquerading as arguments -like yours- are pretty regularly laughed at around here. :)
December 30th, 2010 | 6:10 pm
If true, it’s an indictment against First Things.
December 30th, 2010 | 6:14 pm
well, that’s an indictment FT and we its readers will just have to live with.
December 30th, 2010 | 10:45 pm
JGY, that’s ridiculous. Being Christian doesn’t mean you automatically stop loving your children when they disagree with you. Yeah, there will be arguments over sexuality if people degree, but that happens regardless of familial belief. There are arguments over everything: choice of mate, loss of or embrace of faith, intermarriage, etc.
Being alienated from a parent sucks, but that’s also the price from being free from and different from your parents too.
As for non-christian family values, I think you’d have to show them existing first. I don’t see people embracing a strong family position in the linked article by choosing civil unions: I see people taking a weak form of social tie mostly to secure benefits. A lot of the secular family arguments I see tend to be reductionist or redefinitionist.
December 30th, 2010 | 11:06 pm
Interesting how the gay agenda managed to hijack a thread dealing with marriage by accusing Christian parents of child abuse–all the while avoiding using the terms “homosexual” or “gay”. Hence the great circumlocution.
December 31st, 2010 | 12:42 am
Mr. Koehl apparently wants to tutored like a child. For anyone not completely blinded by conservative religious ideology, all that’s needed to appreciate the difficulties alluded to above (as well as their relation to this discussion) is but one friendship with any gay or lesbian child of fundamentalist parents in the last several decades.
December 31st, 2010 | 12:54 am
Whenever I hear people talk about how evil Christianity is, I think about all the Christians I know personally and how admirable they are. Undoubtedly the worst thing that could happen to gays, or any other minority, is for this to stop being a Christian country.
December 31st, 2010 | 1:52 am
Mike, don’t misunderstand. No one is saying that the Christians you know aren’t admirable in many ways–perhaps even in all the ways familiar to you. Many of the Christians I know are wonderfully admirable people in most respects.
Of course, a priest may seem wonderfully admirable to many who know him personally–even though in private moments of weakness he acts out as a pedophile. Martin Luther was wonderfully admirable in many respects even though he also held despicable anti-semitic views. Here’s the reality: people who are otherwise admirable often have serious moral faults nonetheless. Often they are even blind to their own serious moral shortcomings. (To appreciate these serious moral failings it’s often necessary take up the point of view of their victims–the molested child tends to have certain insight into the moral faults of the priest.)
Such is the case of many conservative Christians today. Many conservatives Christians are totally blind to the ruin they inflict upon the lives of gays and lesbians, even when these are their own children or relatives. In the name of “family values” many of these Christians tragically destroy their own families. I’ve seen some parents, blinded by ideology and tainted by self-righteousness, believe themselves to be the martyrs even as they banish or alienate their own gay or lesbian child at what clearly one of his or her most vulnerable moments. I’ve seen many others completely calloused to these evils, even as the campaign for the very “family values” that give rise to them.
December 31st, 2010 | 6:50 am
‘all that’s needed to appreciate the difficulties alluded to above (as well as their relation to this discussion) is but one friendship with any gay or lesbian child of fundamentalist parents in the last several decades.’
You make it sound as if being a fundamentalist parent were somehow worse than being a gay child.
I dunno. If any child of mine ever came out of the closet, I’d probably still love them, if not as much; and the Mrs. would definitely have to raise them by herself in the next room. I think that’s reasonable.
December 31st, 2010 | 9:15 am
“Mr. Koehl apparently wants to tutored like a child.”
Mr. Koehl objects to be tutored by a child–a spoiled and petulant one at that.
December 31st, 2010 | 11:31 am
‘Mike, don’t misunderstand. No one is saying that the Christians you know aren’t admirable in many ways–perhaps even in all the ways familiar to you. Many of the Christians I know are wonderfully admirable people in most respects.’
This is incredibly condescending.
‘Of course, a priest may seem wonderfully admirable to many who know him personally–even though in private moments of weakness he acts out as a pedophile.’
You’re an idiot if you think being a priest or little league coach or anything else predisposes one to being a pedophile. This is truly ignorant and insults many good people. You should educate yourself on the realities of the sex abuse scandal.
‘Here’s the reality: people who are otherwise admirable often have serious moral faults nonetheless. Often they are even blind to their own serious moral shortcomings.’
The good are really the bad? How interesting. I bet your private life couldn’t bear the scrutiny of a flashlight.
‘Such is the case of many conservative Christians today. Many conservatives Christians are totally blind to the ruin they inflict upon the lives of gays and lesbians, even when these are their own children or relatives. In the name of “family values” many of these Christians tragically destroy their own families.’
You are wrong. The ruin homosexuals experience is not imposed by their parents.
‘I’ve seen some parents, blinded by ideology and tainted by self-righteousness, believe themselves to be the martyrs even as they banish or alienate their own gay or lesbian child at what clearly one of his or her most vulnerable moments. I’ve seen many others completely calloused to these evils, even as the campaign for the very “family values” that give rise to them.’
I doubt you have seen any such thing.
December 31st, 2010 | 4:22 pm
Sean, the suggestion is not that gays and lesbians are morally better than Christians. Remember: gays and lesbians are also human beings. Just like everyone else, gays and lesbians have moral shortcomings of their own–although their sexual orientation is not one of these problems.
The suggestion is rather that fundamentalist parents are prone to a particular sort of serious moral wrongdoing: i.e., wrongfully harming their gay and lesbian children in a misguided and often hypocritical attempt to uphold traditionalist “family values”–values which for this reason some of the French are right in trying to avoid.
Stuart Koehl: You’ve again avoided contributing anything to this discussion. What is your excuse this time?
Mike: Your objections all tend to go a little far afield. Re-read what I actually have written, and try to substantiate your assertions (e.g., try to substantiate your assertion “You are wrong. The ruin homosexuals experience is not imposed by their parents.”; and “I doubt you have seen any such thing.” Such assertions do not constitute compelling arguments.)
December 31st, 2010 | 5:24 pm
JGY, you seem sincere. I’m also guessing you’re a young person. I want to offer you some advice. I hope you don’t take it the wrong way.
1. No matter who you are, no matter what you do, there will always be people in life who disapprove of you. If your conscience is clear, then just forget about them and go on with your life.
2. You’ll never get anywhere insulting people’s religion. People like their religion. If you don’t like being proselytized, then don’t proselytize others.
December 31st, 2010 | 6:24 pm
Mike, though you’ve previously taken my comments the wrong way, I do hope that your new advice giving role will inspire maturity in your own conversation. I can only hope that this new self-appointed role might bring with it an openness to criticism (to be distinguished from insults to your religion), as well as an openness to read what is actually written in the comments towards which your responses are aimed (to be distinguished from your attempts to discern age, e.g.).
December 31st, 2010 | 6:44 pm
“You’ve again avoided contributing anything to this discussion. What is your excuse this time?”
That you are an un-serious person who thinks a put down is an argument. So, answer the question I posed elsewhere: has there ever been a society, in any place, at any time, that conceived of marriage as involving the legal union of two people of the same sex?
Failure to answer with an affirmative example would be a tacit admission that what you truly seek is a complete redefinition of marriage contrary to what has universally been understood by the term. That, in turn, places the burden of proof upon you: just why should we do this, and to whose benefit?
December 31st, 2010 | 7:49 pm
Stuart Koehl,
I suggest that you study the critical remarks about “definition fixation” that have been made in the more recent thread. Here we’ve been discussing the wrongful harms that are frequently committed by religious conservatives in an arguably misguided (and often hypocritical) attempt to protect “family values.” This is one reason that some of the French may be well-advised in distancing themselves from certain norms associated marriage. The upshot, of course, is that those traditionalist norms associated with marriage are harmful to families and to the public’s willingness to respect the institution of marriage, as witnessed in France.
It’s become obvious that you are upset. Passions have made more productive dialog difficult. Because it’s an emotional issue for a lot of people, I’m willing to give you a pass. In the future, however, please try to avoid taking my critical remarks about your blog behavior as mere “put-downs.” My critical remarks are my attempts to help you to distinguish your comments of late from substantive comments that would be relevant to the present discussion.
January 1st, 2011 | 7:48 am
Answer the question, or be silent.
January 1st, 2011 | 1:59 pm
For this thread, here would be a legitimate ultimatum:
As for your question, Mr. Koehl, I’d advise you to pose it as follows on the later thread, where your peculiar fixation has already been criticized:
January 1st, 2011 | 11:22 pm
If you wonder why the so much more educated chidren reject much of Christianity…………., christianity includes
Justifying slaver as per the bible, and giving the USA the KKK and segregation. This hatred is being rekindled in the USA by the bible belt branch of the republican party.
Hating gay people and driving 3000 gay teens to suicide every year – a 9/11 of our children in the name of a hateful interpretation of God EVERY SINGLE YEAR . We are fighting the wrong war on terrorism.
A pope who learned his lessons well growing up in Nazi germany. In 2009 he UNexcommunciated a Bishop Williamson, formerly with the Anglican church.
Williamson is a holocaust denier.
The catholic church has yet to excommunciate the worst murderer of modern times, Hitler. But it has instantly excommunicated good priests who supported marriage equality for gay people.
All over the world, wherever the church operates, we find the Cath church has hidden endless child abuse. Brazil, the USA, Ireland, england, Switzerland etc. Virtually all western
nations.
How did hitler get elected? On the backs of the hatred of the Jews, which his church fomented for a 1000 years because the Jews wouldn’t convert
The catholic church burned at the stake perhaps a million women as witches during the middle ages. Why – because they saw “witchcraft” as a competing religion. And also to buttress the power of men over women. Identical to what we see today in Islam.
The list of crimes in the name of Jesus must make Him turn over in his grave.
And re gay marriage or equivalent, Today Ireland, the country that evangelized catholicism in Europe granted gays fulll marrige rights (not rites) under the term civil unions. Could this be due to the endless physical, mental and sexual abuse of children by the catholic “christian brothers” in Ireland. Which runs reform schools. They used children as slaves in factories building relgiious trinkets, fed them poorly etc. And a good day was a day without a beating.
over the world today every last western european nation except italy and greece give gays marriage or an equivalent legal construct.
Add CAnada, and 6 countries in latin america. Sick and tired of the evil perpetuated in the name of God by conservative churches.
Parts of the USA, 3 countries in E. Europe, Israel, RSA, Nepal, AU and NZ
And in Europe, Finland is leading the change from “partnerships to marriage for gay people. Denmark – most conservative of the scandanavian countries just gave gays the right to adopt. Endland is close to doing as finland did, France may follow.
As I said before – teh conservative churches have the right to commit suicide. Given their past and present history, the only shame is they didn’t do so long long ago.
And free the people from their dogma. If Jesus came back today, they would no longer be able to use his name.
The christian conservativer churches have the right to commit suicide. They will be unwept, dishonored and unsung.
While the good christian churches like the UCC, Episcopal, MCC, some presbyterian branches, Evangelical Lutherans, American Baptists, jewish reform and some Jewish conservative continue to treak our gay friends as part of Gods wondrous creation, entitled to equal treatment under the law.
January 1st, 2011 | 11:34 pm
The problem with marriage and religion in general is that it tries to take over our government and become a state religion. Exactly what would give us peace with the muslim fanatics if we let them make Islam our state religion.
It is, as some commentators mentioned, time to separate civil marriage and religious marriage.
Let the churches define whom they want to marry, which is their right. But insure that as in France etc, these marriages do not confer any legal /contractual rights.
Separately all people, regardless of sexuality, color, etc should be allowed to marry under civil law, with the only restrictions being age, not too close a relationship, and no coercion .
Simlpy go to the civil authorities and sign the legal contract of marriage and get your “rights”.
Go to your church, and if the church approves, get your “marriage rites”.
January 1st, 2011 | 11:49 pm
I’d like to add to the comments regarding gays and marriage.
First there is absolutely no requirement for a couple to plan to have, or even be able to have children. The days of the tribe needing more and more children to fight the incessant wars against other tribes and survive in the face fo 80% infant death rates are gone.
Second we should be aware that about 25% of gay children find out what christian love really means when their parents throw them out of their house the day they are 18.
Next – AS someone else mentioned, “if you know a gay person, you will discover in all likelyhood they are wonderful people”
Thats true. The closet is just a version of the ghetto, which hitler used to hide the Jews from the population at large. Then it was so easy to demonize them, and get the people cheering at his “final solutioN”
I know many many gay people. Virtually all of them are great people, though the majority of them have left religion because conservative religion demonizes them.
And almost all of them have been suicidal in their youth, and most know some other gay who committed suicide. All of course due to the incessant hatred of gays that poisons our societies.
What do you think Jesus would do. or where will HE send the leaders of the churches that are so hollow they always need someone to hate to sell their “love”
Perhaps the wind whistling in the trees is the Sound of God’s expanding Hell to accomodate the “anything but Christians”, who use God and Jesus name to perpetuate hatred of minorities.
Not just gays, but Jews (Jesus own people), orientals, blacks and every other minority group.
Which is the reason we should never never never let majorities determine the rights of minorities. As we did in the south in the past.
January 2nd, 2011 | 12:43 am
The problem with marriage and religion in general is that it tries to take over our government and become a state religion. Exactly what would give us peace with the muslim fanatics if we let them make Islam our state religion.
It is, as some commentators mentioned, time to separate civil marriage and religious marriage.
Let the churches define whom they want to marry, which is their right. But insure that as in France etc, these marriages do not confer any legal /contractual rights.
Separately all people, regardless of sexuality, color, etc should be allowed to marry under civil law, with the only restrictions being age, not too close a relationship, and no coercion .
Simlpy go to the civil authorities and sign the legal contract of marriage and get your “rights”.
Go to your church, and if the church approves, get your “marriage rites”.
January 2nd, 2011 | 12:59 am
JGY quoted “I suppose conservative Christians can take great satisfaction in the fact that they don’t actually kill their children in their self-righteousness adherence to their religious “values”–that they instead only alienate and ostracize their sons and daughters at their most vulnerable moments. Even if their children later commit suicide, they haven’t killed them, right?”
………………..
Who are the real killers of gay children – 3000 or so a year in the USA – a repeating 9/11 horror show?
The catholic church whose german born pope continues to demonize gay people, and in 2009 Unexcommunicated a bishop williamson, who is a holocaust denier. Talk about a church losing its way.
And the people who adhere, regardless of where they are living, to the old culture of the south, which gave us slavery, the KKK, and segregation.
These evil people are murderers beyond comprehension. Of course they get others to do their dirty work.
In the aftermath of WWII, there were actually many Nuremberg trials. Not of the people who threw the Jews, gays, and other despised by the nazis groups into the ovens.
But of those whose words created and supported the climate of fear, hatred and utter evil that gave us WWII and the holocaust of 6 million Jews and 5 million others.
And the fact that they didn’t pull the trigger or toss the victims into the ovens was no defense.
When are we going to re-instate the Nuremberg trials for the evil ones who poison our society resulting in this continuing 9/11 every single year.
And hitler was of course the leader who didnt have the guts to face justice and committed suicide as the Russians were knocking on the doors of his bunker in Berlin.
If captured he didn’t deserve a hanging. He deserved to be put on display naked in a zoo. Where for perhaps a couple decades people could come and stone him, in continual torture, until at the end he would have been tossed to the lions for a meal.
YOu cant blame lions for eating people, its what they are from their birth.
For hitler to be fed to them on worldwide TV would be a message for the next 10000 years about people who mass murder people.
And remember – to this very day, hitler has yet to be EXcommunicated by his church.
The church that gave the world the hatred of Jesus own people the Jews, Which hitler leveraged to gain election and 55 million died.
And why hasn’t the church excommunicated him?
Because to do so they would have had to excommunciate the church for their part in poisoning so many against jesus own people, which brought him to power
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact