civil unions for homosexuals. It is SO new!

[FeatsofClay]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070827/sc_livescience/gayunionssanctionedinmedievaleurope;_ylt=AtamWqpGq TzKdAuvLo.OgZWs0NUE

Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.


Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.


If accurate, the results indicate socially sanctioned same-sex unions are nothing new, nor were they taboo in the past.


“Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize," Tulchin writes in the September issue of the Journal of Modern History. "And Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures.”


For example, he found legal contracts from late medieval France that referred to the term "affrèrement," roughly translated as brotherment. Similar contracts existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe, Tulchin said.


In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses, Tulchin explained.


The same type of legal contract of the time also could provide the foundation for a variety of non-nuclear households, including arrangements in which two or more biological brothers inherited the family home from their parents and would continue to live together, Tulchin said.


But non-relatives also used the contracts. In cases that involved single, unrelated men, Tulchin argues, these contracts provide “considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships."


The ins-and-outs of the medieval relationships are tricky at best to figure out.


"I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been," Tulchin said. "It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that.”


Kinda sheds a little new light on the debate, eh?

[mollygrue]

my great aunt & her partner were together from the 1920s until their deaths in the eighties. the unknowing just assumend they were two maiden ladies sharing their expenses. they were not an isolated arrangement --it was not at all uncommon among the intellectual set they were associated with--they made various legal arrangements to share assets, etc as did their other friends in similar circumstances and everyone just went about their business.

it seems to me that one of the issues people are having with the whole civil union vs marriage debate is often a poor understanding of the idea of marriage. when i wed my second husband, his youngest sister ( abt 19) was horrifed at the idea of not being married in a church--she knew that licenses came from the courthouse but thought it wasnt a real marriage w/o a ceremony. we had quite the long discussion w/ her about the legal aspects of marital union vs the modern and traditional social aspects.

for those to whom marriage is entirely viewed as a religious institution--the waters get pretty murkey. a business man of my aquaintence, after much long and convoluted thought on the matter ( real demolition derby/gun totin/ motorcycle riding/baby makin redneck from the back country) he decided that his policy was--it didnt affect his business, and long as everybody was happy and paid their bills, well ,more power to em.

seems as bout as good a policy as any.

[BOZ]

my great aunt & her partner were together from the 1920s until their deaths in the eighties.

i just have to say, DAY-awwwm! that's such a long span of time that it boggles the mind.

[mollygrue]

i just have to say, DAY-awwwm! that's such a long span of time that it boggles the mind.
yes--it was as long or longer than most marriages. they met in college.
they were divinely happy in each others company, achieved their personal and professional goals, and were adored by everyone who knew them.

women in my family rarely die until in their 90s. only 2 in about the last 100 years or so. piss and vinegar apparently acts as a preservative.

[shabois]

I have no problem with anyone getting a Civil Union. it just baffles me that with all the serious issues facing our country, we can't just let Americans do what they want in this issue and take care of real problems.

[Ancalagon]

I have no problem with anyone getting a Civil Union. it just baffles me that with all the serious issues facing our country, we can't just let Americans do what they want in this issue and take care of real problems.

The funny thing is all the repression leads to aberrant behavior. Like that senator who was looking for gay sex in a bathroom... do you really think if he was openly gay in a tolerant society he would have to go to such extremes?

Ancalagon

[shabois]

The funny thing is all the repression leads to aberrant behavior. Like that senator who was looking for gay sex in a bathroom... do you really think if he was openly gay in a tolerant society he would have to go to such extremes?

Ancalagon

I agree, it is just like the legalizing marijuana issue. If the government made it legal and taxed the shit it would reduce crime and lower my income taxes!

People do fucked up shit when society makes something "taboo". I am not a fan of prostitution but if it were legal again it would help out a lot of at risk women out there.

[Atropine Mama]

Ah, the legislation of social morality. I hear thousands of my own brain cells crying out into the darkness as they die trying to wrap around the concept.

I wish we could just do away with marriage as a legal thing altogether and have legal partnerships for financial crap.

[BOZ]

People do fucked up shit when society makes something "taboo".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_alcohol

you'd think they would have learned by now, but no... the war on drugs is so much better! ;)

the only thing i hope legalization advocates understand is that if the things they're looking for ever do become legalized, they will be heavily regulated and taxed... just look at beer and cigarettes! and unregulated activities performed as they currently are (drug dealers, street prostitutes) will be punished far more severely than they are now, because now you're cutting into the corporations' profits. :D

[BOZ]

I wish we could just do away with marriage as a legal thing altogether and have legal partnerships for financial crap.

absolutely. i've been feeling this one for a few years now. make a legal partnership system for whoever wants to own property together, to act as beneficiaries on life insurance, or whatever other benefits that come with it. any two (or more) legal adults could get one. a romantic component is not required, but a good sense of trust in the other(s) involved is necessary. would be dissolved by a system similar to today's legal divorce proceedings.

then, within various religious insitutions, you'd have whatever sort of marriage custom is commonly in place to make promises of love and commitment to someone you love, fitting whatever sort of system is held by that religion. be it christian, muslim, jewish, hindu, pagan, or even some sort of agnostic system for people who like the idea of a traditional marriage declaration and such. there would be no legal component to this arrangement and a divorce would be granted only by the religious institution as deemed necessary. since the marriage is determined by the religious leaders, they can ban interracial marriage, gay marriage, or any marriage they wish - but you can always find another church to do it at if you so desire.

people can have both systems if they apply for and qualify. any currently married people not going through the divorce process would be grandfathered into whichever one they applied for or both (got married in city hall, you get the legal one; got married in a church or had your relationship blessed by one you get the church marriage).

i think that would be the best way to resolve the issue, though i'm under no delusions that this may never happen. ;)

[Freedom Canadian]

absolutely. i've been feeling this one for a few years now. make a legal partnership system for whoever wants to own property together, to act as beneficiaries on life insurance, or whatever other benefits that come with it. any two (or more) legal adults could get one. a romantic component is not required, but a good sense of trust in the other(s) involved is necessary. would be dissolved by a system similar to today's legal divorce proceedings.

then, within various religious insitutions, you'd have whatever sort of marriage custom is commonly in place to make promises of love and commitment to someone you love, fitting whatever sort of system is held by that religion.

I've had this opinion for a while, but I've recently learned that in Canada, marriage is a federal jurisdiction while civil unions are a provincial jurisdiction. So it's never gonna happen because abolishing one would mean a level of government giving up power. How fucked up is that ? :)

[BOZ]

pretty typical, really.

[Tetsubo]

My only concern about granting legal Civil Unions to same sex couples is that they have EXACTLY the same rights as hetero married couples. I don't want any legal second class citizens.

I have yet to hear one person that is opposed to Same Sex Unions to have any reason other than, "Because my religion says so." Nice going asshat...

I have a coworker that mentioned that he is opposed to Same Sex Unions. Being the curious type I asked why. He said he felt it was bad for society. OK, I might be able to understand that. I don't agree with it, but I could understand it. So I asked him why he felt it was bad for society. His response? Silence. After a minute he said that I didn't know why it was bad for society but he still felt it was... So I figure he heard that Same Sex Unions are bad for society from some news source that he likes or respects. And just never questioned it. Go America!