Sorry, your best man is gay

15791011

Comments

  • You must have missed the bit about a duty of faithfulness.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    You must have missed the bit about a duty of faithfulness.

    Ok. I can believe I'm being faithful to my spouse whilst not practicing fidelity.

    Which is why I asked the question.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Of course French may use the same word for both the English ‘fidelity’ and the English ‘faithfulness’.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited February 2019
    Double posting to add that for the CofE neither the contemporary nor 1662 BCP marriage services use the word fidelity - faithfulness is what is spoken of.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    It says that spouses have a 'duty of respect, faithfulness, help and assistance' to each other (article 212).

    So.. in France infidelity presumably can't be a reason for divorce..?

    What is infidelity but a failure to observe the duty of faithfulness?
  • It strikes me that the legal French concept of marriage, stripped down to its basics, is much the same as our British Civil Partnership.

    But, then, I've never seen the point (in Britain) of having the two options of Civil Partnerships and secular marriages - except as a "fudge" to get round the idea of Equal Marriage.

    [BT hears the neigh of a dead horse in the distance and prepares to beat a retreat before it kicks him].
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    Not quite, BT. France has an equivalent to a civil partnership – a pacte civil de solidarité or PACS. It’s available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and especially since the introduction of same-sex marriage, most of the people getting a PACS these days are straight.

    The main differences are these: a PACS is much easier to undo than a marriage. It’s a pretty simple administrative procedure, compared to the long and costly process of getting a divorce if you’re married. OTOH, a PACS affords rather less rights and protections, in relation to children and especially to inheritance. Notably, a spouse inherits, a civil partner doesn’t. There are various reservations here, because French inheritance law often privileges children over spouses. So for example, in my case, my husband has children from a previous marriage, which means that they would have been his heirs had we not been to see a notary to set up various protections for me. But even so, the procedure in question (a thing called a deed of donation to the last survivor) is only available to married couples. In the event that I am the last survivor, the kids still inherit after I die, but as long as I am alive, I have the usufruct of the whole estate. In a PACS, if my husband died, the kids would get everything straight away and there would be nothing I could do about it. (As it is, I am planning to live to be at least a hundred just to spite them :naughty:)

    @Leorning Cniht, I think I might not have been clear in my phrasing. When I talked about how seriously people take a religious or civil marriage, I was referring to the respective ceremonies, rather than the actual married life that follows. A lot of religious people (and not just Catholics – I’ve known many evangelicals to do the same) treat the civil marriage ceremony at the Town Hall as a mere formality before the “real” wedding follows. I disagree with this profoundly. All the protections and rights I have referred to above come from the French state, as does the right to request French nationality, which I shall shortly be availing myself as a consequence of the Brexit sh*tshow. It’s a big deal.
  • Thanks for the explanation - interesting!
  • A civil ceremony takes about ten minutes; at my city hall on Saturday, it's a veritable assembly line of marriages, one every ten minutes. You need to make sure you don't attend the wrong one by mistake).

    Especially if you are one of the happy couple.
  • Well, even in my own (church) wedding, the Minister managed to get my bride's name wrong in two different ways during the ceremony.

    I think, therefore, that we've been legally married since 1982 ...
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    It says that spouses have a 'duty of respect, faithfulness, help and assistance' to each other (article 212).

    So.. in France infidelity presumably can't be a reason for divorce..?
    Why? How? That looks like a non sequitur to beat all non sequiturs.


    In English law, it is the 'take' bit that creates the marriage, not the vows. The legal consequences and obligations of marriage follow automatically from being married.

    Those who marry in church have to say they are committing themselves to a set of obligations, but neither the state nor the CofE (I can't speak for any other communion) would accept any argument that people who haven't verbally expressed their commitment to those obligations are somehow let off keeping them, or are held to a lower standard.

    Incidentally, a CofE marriage, to be valid, must comply with the wording either of the 1662 BCP or Common Worship. Common Worship provides several alternative options, and also allows for quite a lot of flexibility as to the order the different elements go in, but if the celebrant gets it wrong, leaves bits out or goes off on a liturgical jolly of his, her or the couple's own, there is quite a strong risk that the marriage might be void.

    If a couple want to do something a bit whimsical, the only safe way of doing it is to get married before the Registrar first, and then have a blessing service.
  • It was a question, Enoch.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    It says that spouses have a 'duty of respect, faithfulness, help and assistance' to each other (article 212).
    Which means that when they say 'yes,' they are legally promising that they will indeed have a 'duty of respect, faithfulness, help and assistance' to each other.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    A lot of religious people (and not just Catholics – I’ve known many evangelicals to do the same) treat the civil marriage ceremony at the Town Hall as a mere formality before the “real” wedding follows.
    Again, you seem to conflate legal importance with personal importance. Legally, the marriage in the Town Hall is the more important one. But for a Catholic, who believes that marriage is a sacrament before God, the ceremony in the Church is obviously the more important one. But you cannot deduce from this that they do not take the legal part seriously.
    I disagree with this profoundly. All the protections and rights I have referred to above come from the French state, as does the right to request French nationality, which I shall shortly be availing myself as a consequence of the Brexit sh*tshow. It’s a big deal.
    Yet I am pretty sure these people believe God is slightly more important than the French state. And you cannot, from the mere fact that a couple holds that the sacramental part of their marriage is the most important part, claim that it then follows that they do not care about the legal part. You are creating a contradiction where none exist.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    It says that spouses have a 'duty of respect, faithfulness, help and assistance' to each other (article 212).

    So.. in France infidelity presumably can't be a reason for divorce..?
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    It says that spouses have a 'duty of respect, faithfulness, help and assistance' to each other (article 212).

    So.. in France infidelity presumably can't be a reason for divorce..?

    It is not here. The only ground for divorce is irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The only evidence permitted to prove that is that "the parties separated and thereafter lived separately and apart for a continuous period of not less than 12 months immediately preceding the date of the filing of the application for the divorce order" (Family Law Act, 1975, s.48). Much more civilised than raids on hotel bedrooms. It does nothing to improve proceedings for child care arrangements or settlement of property though.
  • @Leorning Cniht, I think I might not have been clear in my phrasing. When I talked about how seriously people take a religious or civil marriage, I was referring to the respective ceremonies, rather than the actual married life that follows.

    My point was that it is the married life that is the important bit.

    I liked my wedding. I see one wedding photo every day (it's on the wall) and remember the day fondly from time to time, but the occasion itself really isn't that important. The important thing is that we made some promises, and (attempt to) live out those promises every day.

    At some point in the next year, I might acquire US citizenship. I will be invited to a ceremony where there will be a bunch of public pledging and flag-waving. I will be told what an important day this is in my life as a new American. I will be completely underwhelmed by all this. Again, if I become American, I will be making some new promises. The important part is how I live out those promises on a daily basis, not what I regard as a trivial bit of administration.

    I have lesbian friends who celebrate four different anniversaries (the first was a commitment service with no legal status, the last was a US wedding, and I don't remember what the middle ones were.) From a legal point of view, the important one is the last one. That's the one that gets them all the legal rights. From their personal point of view, the important one is the first one, where they made their mutual promises, and all the others were little more than paperwork trying to get whatever legal protection they could.

  • Enoch wrote: »
    Incidentally, a CofE marriage, to be valid, must comply with the wording either of the 1662 BCP or Common Worship. Common Worship provides several alternative options, and also allows for quite a lot of flexibility as to the order the different elements go in, but if the celebrant gets it wrong, leaves bits out or goes off on a liturgical jolly of his, her or the couple's own, there is quite a strong risk that the marriage might be void.

    If memory serves there is acknowledgment by the state that people do muck these things up (along with banns and other such things) and there is a law passed by parliament periodically confirming the validity of all marriages contracted since the last one that haven't been challenged, just to tidy up any defects of process so that they can't be dug up and quibbled over 20 years down the line.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    kmann wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    It says that spouses have a 'duty of respect, faithfulness, help and assistance' to each other (article 212).
    Which means that when they say 'yes,' they are legally promising that they will indeed have a 'duty of respect, faithfulness, help and assistance' to each other.

    No, they are acknowledging that they are entering into an agreement of which this is one of the statutory requirements.

    Entering into a contract in full knowledge of the facts is not the same thing as promising to uphold it. Other forms of contract typically contain a 'good faith' clause, i.e. a clause that says the parties intend to uphold the contract, but even this is not the same as an explicit, assertive declaration that you intend to do so. Do you think you are making a promise when you tick the EULA box to run software?
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Full disclosure: grandson of a convicted bigamist here.
    Great-granddaughter of one, here...
    Are you descended from the original family, or the replacement one?
  • The replacement one. Maybe we're distant half-cousins or something!

    I know my grandfather did prison for the offence, but I don't know how long for, and of course I know nothing about him thereafter. It took me several years in prison chaplaincy before making a connection between the jail time he did and my vocation in that direction.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    kmann wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    It says that spouses have a 'duty of respect, faithfulness, help and assistance' to each other (article 212).
    Which means that when they say 'yes,' they are legally promising that they will indeed have a 'duty of respect, faithfulness, help and assistance' to each other.

    No, they are acknowledging that they are entering into an agreement of which this is one of the statutory requirements.
    That's just semantics.
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Entering into a contract in full knowledge of the facts is not the same thing as promising to uphold it.
    Yes, it does. If you don't keep a contract, you have to take the consequences that a breach may incur. In this case, losing inheritence rights, for instance, if it results in divorce.
  • kmann wrote: »
    That's just semantics.

    I earn my living essentially by correctly identifying important semantic distinctions, and there is one here.

    Whether or not one is in breach of an agreement depends not on promises being made but on whether one has signed up to the agreement. The less explicit the commitment by the parties, the more likely they are not to realise what they are agreeing to. Answering "yes" to a statement by somebody else is like a Contract of Adhesion. It might have the same end consequences, but it requires less active participation of the party in question.

    In France, parties to a contract are often required to write out in full, by hand, particularly important undertakings they are going to enter into by signing a contract (e.g. a loan agreement) in an attempt to ensure that they really think about what they are signing up to. One of the drawbacks in a French civil wedding ceremony is that this does not happen. The spouses simply say "yes".
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    The pattern of the Church of England services (considered from the point of view of making an agreement is:
    1. A statement of the nature of the agreement
    2. Enquiry as to whether the parties are legally free to make the agreement.
    3. Expression by the parties of their willingness to enter the agreement.
    4. Parties each recite the terms of the agreement.
    5. Giving and receiving of a visible token of the completed agreement.
    6. Declaration by the supervising official that the agreement has been duly made.
    7. Completion of legal record of the agreement.

    The 1662 BCP service has the words at the end of 4, ‘and thereto I plight thee my troth’ - meaning (more or less) I give you my word that I will do this.

    Both services refer to the couple’s words as ‘vows’, and talk of the covenant they have made, but in neither service do the couple use the words ‘vow’ or ‘promise’.

    My own feeling is that agreement, promise and vow are all fundamentally the same thing, but shaded with different levels of seriousness and commitment: e.g., “I agreed to scatter my grandmother’s ashes from the top of Ben Nevis”, “I promised to scatter my grandmother’s ashes from the top of Ben Nevis”, “I vowed to scatter my grandmother’s ashes from the top of Ben Nevis”.
  • Point 4 is what is notably not there in a French civil wedding.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Point 4 is what is notably not there in a French civil wedding.
    Yet, if they agree to terms, they agree, thus promise, to uphold them.
  • Let me ask again: when you agree to an EULA (basically, when you tick the box on your way through a website saying something like "I agree to the general terms and conditions") in order to achieve what you've come to the website to do, do you feel you've promised something?
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    I can’t help feeling the point is rather moot anyway.

    Plenty of people do make explicit promises in their wedding ceremonies. Doesn’t mean they keep them. I can’t see that the religiously married with vows are committing adultery (for example) any less frequently than the civilly married without vows.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Let me ask again: when you agree to an EULA (basically, when you tick the box on your way through a website saying something like "I agree to the general terms and conditions") in order to achieve what you've come to the website to do, do you feel you've promised something?
    Yes, and legally I have.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    I can’t help feeling the point is rather moot anyway.

    Plenty of people do make explicit promises in their wedding ceremonies. Doesn’t mean they keep them. I can’t see that the religiously married with vows are committing adultery (for example) any less frequently than the civilly married without vows.
    No, it is still a promise, though. Anytime you sign a contrast you are promising to keep it. I don't get why this is controversial.

  • It's not controversial, but I submit it is idiosyncratic to feel you have made a promise when ticking a box or indeed not doing anything at all beyond opening a package. Or entering a room.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    It's not controversial, but I submit it is idiosyncratic to feel you have made a promise when ticking a box or indeed not doing anything at all beyond opening a package. Or entering a room.
    Yet, that is exactly what you have done, legally, when ticking that box. You have entered into a contract.
  • Ok. But does these differences actually mean anything in terms of how French married people think of their status compared to people in the UK or Norway?
  • I maintain there's a difference between consciously making a promise and discovering, doubtless in the event of a problem, that you have in fact made one more or less unawares.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I maintain there's a difference between consciously making a promise and discovering, doubtless in the event of a problem, that you have in fact made one more or less unawares.
    It's the difference between an informed and an uninformed promise. Both are promises.
  • "Making a promise" is not the same thing as entering into an agreement which entails a promise. One is active, one is passive.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    I think what Eutychus is trying to convey is the difference between steering to hit a pedestrian when driving a car and accidentally hitting a jaywalker. Sure, the person is just as dead in both cases, and while most of reality gives zero fucks about what was intended some people might.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    The New York Jewish Week at least appears to agree with me:
    2. Well-Made Promises are Active.

    A passive promise is one where someone has made a request and you answer, “uh-huh” and then go right back to what you were doing. A passive promise is also one made when someone is yelling or crying at you and you agree to keep the peace.

    [ETA and @RooK, as already stated I earn a living by giving fucks about this kind of distinction, while in my unpaid chaplaincy work knowing the difference has probably helped me avoid being on the receiving end of a shiv or two.]
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    I think what Eutychus is trying to convey is the difference between steering to hit a pedestrian when driving a car and accidentally hitting a jaywalker.
    Except if you sign a contract the presumption is that you have actually read it and that you agree to it. You can't say 'but I didn't promise anything!' Yes, you did, the second you signed.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    kmann wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    I think what Eutychus is trying to convey is the difference between steering to hit a pedestrian when driving a car and accidentally hitting a jaywalker.
    Except if you sign a contract the presumption is that you have actually read it and that you agree to it. You can't say 'but I didn't promise anything!' Yes, you did, the second you signed.

    I think that we agree that if you sign a contract, you are legally bound by it in the general case regardless of whether or not you have read it (or understand it - which is why lawyers even exist). However, there are exceptions such as when courts may decide that a person was incapable of entering into such a contract for whatever circumstantial reason. I think Eutychus' hypothetical fucks exist in that sort of logical penumbra.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Legend has it that in the early days of the Salvation Army, William Booth would lead drunks through a prayer of conversion while they were still drunk, then hold them to it when they were sober. Presumably @kmann would argue that the main thing is that they've prayed the prayer, so gotcha.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Legend has it that in the early days of the Salvation Army, William Booth would lead drunks through a prayer of conversion while they were still drunk, then hold them to it when they were sober. Presumably @kmann would argue that the main thing is that they've prayed the prayer, so gotcha.

    I've heard of Buddhist teachers tricking people into taking bodhisattva* vows. (Basically, promising to help other beings throughout all your lives and not entering ultimate Nirvana until everyone else does. I think of it like the cartoon Chipmunks: "After you!" "No, after you!" "No, I insist, after you!"

    *A bodhisattva is sort of a super-saint. (Broadly speaking.)
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited March 2019
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Legend has it that in the early days of the Salvation Army, William Booth would lead drunks through a prayer of conversion while they were still drunk, then hold them to it when they were sober. Presumably @kmann would argue that the main thing is that they've prayed the prayer, so gotcha.

    It's hard to know what is true from that era - there were lots of angry words floating about and lots of efforts to suggest that Booth was a fraud. And if course there are those who want to defend his legacy.

    Fwiw, without seeing a good reference, my guess is that this isn't true. Booth made a big play about saying that people's physical needs were things that needed addressing before attempting evangelism. So it would be contradictory to suggest that it was reasonable to trick a drunk into saying particular words.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    I maintain there's a difference between consciously making a promise and discovering, doubtless in the event of a problem, that you have in fact made one more or less unawares.

    I think that some people see vows (civil or religious) as just something that you do, like having a bouquet or a best man, or wearing "something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue".

    If both parties view vows that way and know that, fine. I personally think people shouldn't make promises unless they understand and mean them. I think it's great when people come up with their own vows and use them. That way, they're more likely to promise something they actually mean.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I maintain there's a difference between consciously making a promise and discovering, doubtless in the event of a problem, that you have in fact made one more or less unawares.

    I think that some people see vows (civil or religious) as just something that you do, like having a bouquet or a best man, or wearing "something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue".

    If both parties view vows that way and know that, fine. I personally think people shouldn't make promises unless they understand and mean them. I think it's great when people come up with their own vows and use them. That way, they're more likely to promise something they actually mean.

    I think swearing or promising vows is entirely unchristian anyway. The whole idea that something is somehow "more real" because it is spoken in public and "in the presence of God" because it is done in a church is bunk anyway.

    I'd have thought the whole point of marriage is absolutely not about whether one has the right bit of paper or have jumped through the right hoops, but that one has understood what one is saying to one's partner and means it.

    Of course, sadly, these things matter in terms of civil law. And in places where one believes there is special magic in doing spiritual interpretive dance.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    <snip>I think swearing or promising vows is entirely unchristian anyway. The whole idea that something is somehow "more real" because it is spoken in public and "in the presence of God" because it is done in a church is bunk anyway. <snip>
    The legally require words for a civil marriage are just
    I call upon these persons here present, to witness that I [name] do take thee [name] to be my lawful wedded wife / wife-husband / husband.
    Like the Church of England wedding vows, there is nothing in them about ‘swearing’ or ‘promising’.

    The public part of the marriage ceremony is important because marriage has legal implications (e.g. the couple become each other’s legal next of kin; previous wills they may have made are invalidated by the marriage (unless made explicitly in view of the coming marriage); husband and wife can’t be compelled to give evidence against each other; etc.). Also there is an element of the couple holding themselves accountable for the commitments they are making.

    I agree with you about “in the presence of God”, although for many couples I have conversations with, if I explore that statement a little, I usually find they freely acknowledge that God is present everywhere, and it is mabout explicitly acknowledging the presence of God, and explicitly seeking God’s blessing.
  • Funny how they're called "vows" then.

    Of course I understand the legal aspects, but too often the while thing seems a pointless, usually rather expensive relic of the past.
  • It's my understanding that Anglican weddings are not valid unless the section ending "vow" or "troth" are spoken. Is that incorrect?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    No, that is correct, and I guess we are then into tricky territory of when does ‘agreement’ become ‘promise’ or ‘vow’, and when does ‘declaring’ become ‘swearing’.

    In legal speak I am used to the idea that a contract is a promise by one party in consideration of some act or promise of action by another party. The law does not say the agreement is less binding because you only ‘agreed’ and didn’t ‘promise’ or ‘swear’ to abide by the agreement.

    And, legally still, ‘I solemnly and sincerely declare that the evidence I shall give…’ has the same force and effect as ‘I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give…’
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    IIRC, the Roman law equivalent of consideration is cause (in French, I've totally forgotten the Italian but causa was the Latin) - which can require a particularly formal document through to a handshake to give rise to a binding contract. Very appropriate to a marriage contract.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    "Making a promise" is not the same thing as entering into an agreement which entails a promise. One is active, one is passive.

    I think to my mind a contract suggests an element of conditionality, i.e. the rights and obligations of one party are dependent on the other party fulfilling theirs. So if I promise to pay money in exchange for services, and don't pay up, then that would (I think) release the vendor from their promise to supply those services; likewise, if I hand over money and the promised services don't arrive, I can pursue the vendor for redress through the courts.

    Conversely, marriage vows do not have that element of conditionality; if I fail to love, honour, comfort and protect my wife, that does not in itself end the marriage unless my wife seeks divorce, and even divorce does not in itself provide redress.
This discussion has been closed.