Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

“Traditional” Same-Sex Unions in Medieval Europe

By

Live Science reports:

Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe….

[Professor Allan Tulchin] found legal contracts from late medieval France that referred to the term “affrèrement,” roughly translated as brotherment….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.

So, might gay marriage be somewhat “traditional”, considering raping and beating one’s wife was legal 125 years ago?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Is there any evidence that these affrèrement contracts were meant to formalize a romantic relationship? Or is it more likely that these contracts were a medieval precursor to our modern concepts of corporations and business partnerships? Reading the linked article, I don’t see Professor Tulchin providing any evidence to support the idea that this was a civil union other than wishful thinking.

    • Here’s what the researcher said in the article:

      <

      p>

      “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.”

      <

      p>
      I can’t imagine how, 600 years later, one could prove whether or not these folks had sexual relationships.  But the corporation/LLC hypothesis seems a bit far-fetched to me.  Among other things, the “pledge to live together,” which was apparently part of these contracts, seems inconsistent with a purely business relationship, since if we’re talking about two straight guys running a business, one assumes that the men also had wives with whom they lived during off-hours.

    • The precursor to the corporation is the informal, and eventually the formal partnership, which is very ancient indeed.  I doubt whether it would have been necessary to have specialized arrangements for same sex partnerships, as almost all women couldn’t enter into business contracts anyway at that time.

      • that romance was not at all a new notion then, but that it just wasn’t necessarily the primary reason for marriage?  if you read poetry, it is clear that romance has been with us for a very, very long time.

    • He puts the emphasis pretty clearly on family structures vs. business contracts or partnerships:

      <

      p>

      The article quoted a news release about Tulchin?s paper, which read, in part, “Opponents of gay marriage in the United States today have tended to assume that nuclear families have always been the standard household form.”

      The news release goes on to quote Tulchin as saying, “Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize, and Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures.”

      <

      p>
      From the website The Edge.

  2. But couldn’t a gay couple have gotten an agreement similar to this prior to gay marriage becoming law?  Is this really anything new?

    <

    p>
    I thought one of the points of equal marriage is that a straight couple didn’t have to go through a step like this, they just got a marriage license and that covered all of the needed agreements while a gay couple would have to get one (or more) lawyers to draw up papers to get this type of agreement.

    • i don’t understand your question.  the diary is about a 600 year old civil institution which apparently no longer exists.

      • Prior to gay marriage becoming law, couldn’t a gay couple go to a lawyer and get an agreement that (similar to marriage) would state that all of the couples property and future wages are held in joint custody.  The agreement could have some sort of clause if they were to separate, who the property would be split.  And then get wills made out that leave everything to each other. 

        <

        p>
        Now, this is much more difficult and costly then simply getting a marriage license which is the reason I supported equal marriage.  Along with some of the other things like a marriage benefit on taxes, etc. 

        <

        p>
        My point was, it is interesting that this type of agreement was around 600 years ago, but it was also available here prior to equal marriage.

        • I think the point may very well be that this type of arrangement is indeed nothing new. While it’s unclear whether these afrerements necessarily applied to homosexual couples, it does at least cast doubt upon the traditionalist argument against legal and social recognition of committed same-sex couples… with the caveat that this is just one snapshot of one place and one moment in European history.

          <

          p>
          To clarify, my guess — not being an historian — is that there was probably a world of difference between these afrerements and Church-sanctioned marriages between hetero couples circa 1400, just as a legal agreement (as suggested above) between a same-sex couple is not the same as true marriage equality in our own day and age.

          <

          p>
          Still, this is a very interesting discovery, and it will be just as interesting to see the abstract when the paper is published.

        • Prior to gay marriage becoming law, couldn’t a gay couple go to a lawyer and get an agreement that (similar to marriage) would state that all of the couples property and future wages are held in joint custody.

          <

          p>
          but it would was expensive and would not necessarily enforcible in court.  We entered into a package in MA in the early 1980s.  It was very expensive for the five documents that had to be drawn up for that.  The MA courts probably would have enforced it, but, if we moved to another state, who knows?  Actually, we do know now. Virginia and probably Michigan, OH and FL would not.  Which is one reason why we refuse to go there.

          <

          p>
          Actually, John Boswirth (sp?) did some scollary work on same-sex marriage that predated the era under discussion.  I can’t find it on the Internet now.  Any ideas of where it might be?

    • … write up a contract between two people that delineates whatever you want to agree upon… including tenants that would normally be assumed in a marriage contract.  The problem is that the contract would necessarily be between the two people only, and that there would be no legal obligation on the part of others to honor the relationship in any legal way.  This means hospital visitation, insurance, etc.

      • and those other reasons were why I supported equal marriage (the libertarian in me wants no marriage licenses issued by the state, but I’m a little kooky). 

        <

        p>
        But there is no indication that anyone besides the parties in the 600 year old agreements were subject to follow them either. 

        • wait for the full scholarly article to be released before making such judgements (see tblade’s link above).  no one here can answer or refute such questions knowledgably.

          <

          p>
          here;s to kooky libertarianism! 🙂

        • …but getting a government body to sanction a two-person, same-sex contract with romantic overtones 600 years ago seems pretty radical. As David pointed out, this appears more than a business arrangement.

          <

          p>
          Imagine two unrelated men 60 years ago trying to get the same type of contract from the small town/county government and living and, if on the chance the contract was granted, the men could live and conduct business in the community without harassment or threats of violence.

        • …the libertarian in me wants no marriage licenses issued by the state…

          <

          p>
          …common law marriage.  It still exists in some states, but there were a number of reasons why many states abolished it.  The primary reason was the difficulty of proving that a marriage existed in the first place.

          <

          p>
          So, common law hubby dies.  How is common law wife supposed to prove that she is entitled to his estate?  You get the idea. 

          <

          p>
          Elimination of common law marriage in favor of state registered marriage made things a lot easier to deal with.  Hubby dies.  Wife (as recognzed by the state registration) inherits.  Simple.

          <

          p>
          BTW, works the other way, too.

      • it is worth reminding others that legal agreements don’t have to be respected by other states.  so for example, if my partner and i have a medical power of attorney for each other, we drive to idaho and get in an accident, poof!  idaho can ignore that document.  in addition, the agreement to share everything does not immunize the surviving spouse from debilitating taxation by the federal government, as does bona fide marriage.  and there are rights that come with marriage that the couple has no way of contracting to each other, such as the right to co-adopt children, the right to not testify against their spouse in a court of law, etc.  it goes on and on.

          • i don’t know.  but honestly, i’ve already spend soooo much money on lawyers, who have to ultimately say “i can’t guarantee that this expensive legal agreement will be honored at crunch time”.  so, maybe you as a supportive non-LGBT person would like to do the research and let us know?

            • There ain’t no guarantees, at least until someone has a crunch time, and a court likes the plan. That is the number one reason why SSM is just; the rest of us have a guaranty.  If your lawyer guarantees anything, you need a different lawyer.

              <

              p>
              Specialized trusts and taxation are hyper-specialized areas, so I’m not sure I would trust my answers even if I did do the resarch.

              <

              p>
              Marriage-simulating trusts are pretty complex animals, so I’m not surprised that they cost, especially if the lawyer had to draft from scratch.  Once the wheel is invented, though, the documents shouldn’t change all that much from couple to couple, and the cost should come down.

              <

              p>
              Maybe you have just identified an underserved niche market.

              <

              p>
              Even if costly, it was wise for you and your spouse to spend that dough, and to maintain all of those arrangements even after Goodridge.

            • The marriage simulating trusts and contracts have gaps relative to federally-recognized statutory marriage.  I was wondering if federal estate taxes were one of these.

              <

              p>
              By the way, this is the genesis of raj’s contention that only the Republicans have done something for GLBT, if only inadvertently.  By reducing/eliminating estate taxes, they have simplified this particular problem for GLBT couples who are attempting to cobble a marriage together from a bunch of notarized documents.

          • long answer no.  Even if income to a trust is tax free, the beneficiary of a trust is probably still subject to income tax on the monies disgourged by the trust.  It’s been a long time since I took a tax course, but I suspect that that is correct.

  3. Considering that slavery was considered a vital tradition in Western society right up until the 19th century I am not that concerned with tradition. Hence I am a liberal, willing to adapt to societal changes and supporting full rights to the individual to pursue the lifestyles of his/her choice. Marriage equality need not derive from some ancient law or custom, it derives from the rights of man that were endowed by the creator and enshrined in law. This is just another irrelevant argument that will detract from following the true spirit of a democratic republic.

    • Is this going to change “traditionalists” view on marriage? No. Even if this was 100% conclusive, they’d just find a new convenient argument or myth.

      <

      p>
      But this can only help to, albeit slowly, chip away at the myths traditionalists love to propagate – the marriage tradition, the myth of the good old days, our foundation as a “Christian Nation”, etc…

      <

      p>
      The more fact and less myth there is in the National dialogue, the closer we get to rational, reason-based discussion.

    • you might reconsider how and where you use that word.  it will raise hackles amongst people you probably don’t mean it to.  also, it gives ammunition to conservatives, who like to insist that being gay is like choosing which dress to wear today, whereas being hetero just is.  we all know that’s bullshit.  let the verbiage reflect that.

      <

      p>
      and no, i’m not the pc police.  i’m tapping a friend on the shoulder, letting him know there’s spinach between his teeth.

Archives