On Marriage, Civil Unions and France

The New York Times has a fascinating — and admittedly disturbing — article about the popularity of civil unions over marriage in France:

In 2000, just one year after the passage of the law, more than 75 percent of civil unions were signed between heterosexual couples. That trend has only strengthened since then: of the 173,045 civil unions signed in 2009, 95 percent were between heterosexual couples.

The article also says that in France, there are two civil unions for every three marriages.

Some argue that civil unions have created this problem with the institution of marriage, but I’m quite confident they only served to shed light on already existing problems.

The institution of marriage has been deteriorating for a long while, as evidenced by a divorce rate that has steadily increased since the 1960s. At the same time, the number of marriages has steadily declined:

While the partnerships have exploded in popularity, marriage numbers have continued a long decline in France, as across Europe. Just 250,000 French couples married in 2009, with fewer than four marriages per 1,000 residents; in 1970, almost 400,000 French couples wed.

Germany, too, has seen a similar plunge in marriage rates. In 2009, there were just over four marriages per 1,000 residents compared with more than seven per 1,000 in 1970. In the United States, the current rate is 6.8 per 1,000 residents, according to the Centers  for Disease Control and Prevention.

Over the past four months, one of the Wednesday night Bible study groups at my church has been discussing the idea that Christians have done a poor job of talking about marriage to young couples and honestly acknowledging the hardships and the dedication required in marriage — like in any relationship. We have been watching and discussing a Love and Respect Ministries conference hosted by Dr. Emerson Eggerichs and his wife, Sarah.

Here’s the gist: Men should love their wives, and wives should respect their husbands. Unconditionally. That is, without expecting reciprocation and even when your spouse is undeserving in your eyes. By doing so, you will receive in return what you need — and deserve — from your spouse. Granted, that sounds awfully simplistic and therefore idealistically foolish. And it is simplistic. It’s just not foolish. It’s that unconditional love and respect that begets mutual love and respect from the other person.

We need to do a better job of talking about what marriage is, what it means to be married and the kind of commitment that should be expected.

Certainly marriage should not be thought of as simply a legal arrangement — much less as “square”:

Sophie Lazzaro, 48, an event planner in Paris, signed a civil union in 2006 with her longtime companion, Thierry Galissant, who is 50. (She said she was drawn to a civil union largely for the legal protections and stability it offered.)

…

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.”

I suppose the “square” part is the teaching that even in times of difficulty a husband and wife should stay together, working diligently to move past their differences and to honor God in their relationship.

Of course, such a statement interjects a belief in God, with which many disagree or dispute. In that sense, perhaps creating civil unions is a good thing for a pluralistic nation such as the United States. Certainly it cannot be pleasing to God that we so casually enter into marriage and when we’re unhappy we so casually exit it. Such disrespect must fall under severe disapproval from Him. 

And I write these words knowing full well how I have failed my marriage in the past — but also knowing how through Christ my marriage has been healed and strengthened and how my wife and I are more in love today than we were when we began our journey together. We certainly did not take the easy way out in times of difficulty, and the long, hard road has been every bit worth it. 

All of this is said without regard to political arguments over same-sex marriage and the idea of civil unions for homosexual couples. 

So let me say this: Civil unions may not be the worst idea in the world. They provide legal protection and assurances for people who want to share their lives together but for whatever reasons do not want to enter into the institution of marriage or are prohibited from doing so. In an open, pluralistic government, that’s a good thing. 

For those who argue that civil unions would tear the fabric of marriage, I say, “Look around. It’s already torn.”

Society — and government — is filled with offerings not suitable or not appropriate or simply not wise for Christian life. That does not mean these offerings should be abolished. It means simply that we, as Christians, should educate and teach our loved ones about appropriate decisions. We should share with as many as possible our beliefs, our testimonies and the reasons for our faith.

Doing so in relation to marriage is a good place to start. Stronger marriages mean stronger families. Stronger families mean a stronger society.

Most of all — and this is desperately lacking when religious arguments cross over into the world of politics — we should approach these issues with humility, humbleness and — most of all — love.