(Not so) Pro-life vid of the day: French woman marries dead fiancé
by LauraLoo
An inconsolable French woman who goes by the name Pascale finally got her wish to marry her dead fiancé. While absurd to most of the world, France has given the nod to roughly 50 of these types of posthumous marriages each year.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvFBwounoCs[/youtube]
I can already hear the vows in my head… “Pascale, do you take (name) to be your lawfully wedded husband… for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health?”
“I now pronounce you deceased man and wife.”
If someone can marry a dead person, why not a trio consisting of one living wife and two corpses, one male and one female? Where does this end?
[HT: WLS Chicago]
Apr.09, 2014 12:00 pm |
Video of the day |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I could see perhaps the families’ desire that she be provided for and treated with the support and honor due to the chosen one of their departed loved one. I suppose a more binding engagement would be appropriate in a culture that would tolerate or encourage this.
Marriage however is “till death do us part.”
“Where does it end?”
It doesn’t end. When reality is lost and forgotten, the unrestrained freedom of insanity can pretend that any fantasy is real.
My heart pures out for the poor young woman. They were probably living together and already behaving as if they were married — when it was that covenant of fidelity that she really wanted.
I mean I could kind of see how you’d get here if you were living together beforehand and wanted the “widow” title that would more accurately describe and convey your grief.
My heart breaks for this young woman as well.
But I’m not sure that marrying your dead fiance is the answer here.
No wonder we don’t get along with the French. They are too “advanced” for us…
What does she do in the future, if she happens to meet someone LIVING that she would like to marry ? Would she have to obtain a legal divorce…from a corpse ?
Pamela lol good point. But wouldn’t that just make her a widow like anyone else with a deceased spouse? That’s what I’m wondering. If like legally this is done to get the widow title.
Not that I’m defending it but that’s the only way this makes sense.
I think it’s weird that it took them until 2013 to allow same-sex marriage but apparently marrying corpses is all the rage, lol. This is pretty nuts.
Please don’t get offended but 1 thing bugs me: in the Catholic doctrine, a marriage has to be consummated…..??????????? So Pascale will be married to a corpse but consummate with the living. Nice going French!!! They cover all the bases :)
Yeah it’s definitely nuts. lol
If we watch the video, we see that the French have a tradition of extending the social benefits of marriage to those who are clearly engaged and intended to marry, but are frustrated by an untimely death. This means widowhood, name change, property rights, survivor benefits, and other civil rights and benefits.
This makes a certain amount of sense — it is much like the same-sex unions who seek tax status and property rights that justly reflect their lifestyles of combined economics.
It is weird to put on a white veil and have a sort of wedding ceremony, but that is irrelevant. Loving and grieving are complicated things, and should be done privately.
See, Del, that’s what I was going for. It makes sense if they were obviously going to get married to extend the social benefits. Just like I wouldn’t deny the social benefits of marriage to gay people necessarily (I know, I know. Firestorm of brimstone in 3, 2, …..)
But I agree that getting dressed up in a veil seems strange. But I don’t know, I mean she’s grieving. Grieving looks different for everyone. I couldn’t imagine.
I don’t agree that loving and grieving should be done privately. To some degree, sure, but doing our lives privately all the time leads to issues like isolation, depression, etc.
What about the rest of the vows
“(name), do you take Pascale to be your lawfully wedded wife…for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health? (name)? (name)!?! (NAME)!!??!!”
When reality is lost and forgotten, the unrestrained freedom of insanity can pretend that any fantasy is real. – you’d better believe it ;-)
I connect to her sorrow and motives in this. I don’t totally agree with it, but I get it. She loved him, she wanted to know she was his wife and he was her husband, it was more than a relationship but something “forever”. Plus, not all marriages are Catholic and follow the same vows. I still think it sounds weird, but I suppose you could say the mother of a stillborn infant requesting a birth certificate for their child is too.
In order to be born, you need to have breathed and been alive in the birth process. Yet some states are making it an option to get these done. It doesn’t mean the child was born, it just helps with the grief, it cements the idea the baby was their child, a member of their family. Likewise, these marriages are essentially confirming the living partner’s dedication and vows to love them eternally. It probably won’t show up anywhere that they are married, the way medical records won’t show the stillborn baby as a child.
LibertyBelle says:
April 9, 2014 at 6:25 pm
I don’t agree that loving and grieving should be done privately. To some degree, sure, but doing our lives privately all the time leads to issues like isolation, depression, etc.
I suppose I did shoot from the hip. Marriage is a public event: The community witnesses the covenant bond of man and wife. We intend to help them and hold them to their vows, because their children are our common future.
In contrast, the community doesn’t care whether a same-sex couple files for a shared tax status or not. Their actions are private and do not matter to our common future.
As for grieving, a funeral is a public act. The whole community suffers benefited from the contributions of the deceased, and we all share in the loss over every human person. That is why we are pro-lifers: We feel the injustice to the pre-born children in our own lives and families.
Their actions are private and do not matter to our common future – same-sex folk have children too.
And are you saying that non same-sex couples’ actions aren’t private? And that you wouldn’t hold same-sex couples to their vows? And how do you claim the right to do so for non same-sex couples?
The essential problem remains: This is not a marriage, for much the same reason that a same-sex couple can never be a marriage. This is a sort of civil union.
The essential problem is that most people do not understand what marriage means. Thus even the majority of natural couples join into contractual civil unions, rather than a covenant marriages. They reckon that they can just get a divorce if it doesn’t work out.
When an entire society thinks that marriages can end in divorce, or that same-sex couples can marry, or that dead persons can get married…. then the basic unit of society (the family) has died and the society will not last much longer.
Dear Lord,
I ask that you comfort this woman in her grief. That You walk her through the grief process to acceptance. That you be her comfort and she turn to You. Amen.
How we have twisted everything. This is lunacy. Idiocy. Foolishness.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Megan,
Please explain how this has ANYTHING to do with stillborn babies and remember that so many of us that read and comment here have lost our precious children to miscarriage, stillbirth, abortion and early infant death.
Be mindful of your words and what you are comparing the lives of our children to. We are grieving mothers who LOVE our children. ALL of our children.
Be mindful and have grace and compassion.
If I am reading your comment wrong please correct me.
I am thinking you AREN’T the commenter BLUE VELVET??(who is named Megan)
“Their actions are private and do not matter to our common future – same-sex folk have children too.”
They don’t have children but adopt and yes, adoption is a noble endeavor.
”And that you wouldn’t hold same-sex couples to their vows?”
Depends how one defines marriage. The “common future” reference in your first comment, cited above, is only valid if it relates to procreation issues that define “common future.” Your conclusion does not follow the original premise upon which its meaning is built…..
They don’t have children but adopt and yes, adoption is a noble endeavor.
Slippery slope there. They do have children – they just don’t produce them biologically together.
People who adopt have children. The nature of adoption (should) be that children become your own. You do have them. You raise them. They are completely yours. Maybe not your DNA, per se, but yours nonetheless.
We are looking at two meanings of that word. The only difference is that biological parents have these children from day one and same-sex couples adopt to eventually have them. So no slippery slope there at all…
Most gay or bisexual people, in a relationship or not, are raising their own biological children. But it’s rather irrelevant to the thread, I was just making a joke, not expecting a serious discussion on it.
Unless like Jack said they are raising a biological child, which a lot of them do.
Oh hi Del. I didn’t see your comment earlier sorry.
Maybe I’m just a fan of more honesty about emotions (I’d make a great European, probably). I’m openly affectionate and when I’m grieving, I try not to hide it. I didn’t realize you were talking about weddings/funerals, I just thougth you meant how we go about displaying our emotions of love and grief.
But then, I’m a hyper-emotional person adn I always have been.
You’d be great in some Latin American cultures too, LB, lol. There’s no hiding grief in some of them.
Oh I could totally rock being a Latina. ;) One of my best friends is from Colombia (she thinks I sound Spanish when I speak… well … Spanish lol). But anyway yeah I didn’t think about that but I could totally rock it and it’s true. I’d be more at home in more expressive cultures.
My poor partner though. lol sometimes I just like run up and kiss him and he’s like, “Um. There’s people around.” And I just put my hands on my hips and say, “And? They’ve never seen love before?”
Jack: April 10, 2014 at 12:41 pm
“Most gay or bisexual people, in a relationship or not, are raising their own biological children. ”
LibertBelle: April 10, 2014 at 1:20 pm
“Unless like Jack said they are raising a biological child, which a lot of them do.
So are the two of you telling me that MOST homosexual people have sex with the opposite gender? I’m totally flabbergasted!!!! :)
Well I don’t want to speak for gay bisexual people, but some of them get obligatory marriages to opposite genders for social reasons, whatever. And bisexual obviously can still be attracted someone of the opposite gender. And let’s just say that yes, you can have sex with people you’re not attracted to.
Some lesbians have children by sperm donors, etc. things like that.
No marriage is obligatory EVER LibertyBelle. And they don’t get those but CHOOSE to enter into one for a variety of reasons.
Surely you can have sex with people you are not attracted to but if you are truly of a specific sexual orientation WHY WOULD YOU?
Sperm donors make quite a living that’s for sure….
Well actually there are things like arranged marriages so technically in parts of the world, yes, some marriages are obligatory….
But in most cases you’re right. People do choose to get married.
I can’t say why I’m just telling it like it is.
Jack? Maybe you can expound on the whys and wherefores? lol
Thomas it is much less common in the generations right after yours, but in previous years gays and lesbians (and bisexuals) would marry the opposite gender to attempt to live a moral life according the Christian ethics that were socially required at the time. This still happens, though it is much less common. I believe many gay and lesbian Christians choose celibacy instead of marriage now, because it’s safer to be “out” and celibate, they don’t feel as though they need to marry to hide their orientation for their own safety or social acceptance. And of course there are some gay and lesbian Christians who do not believe homosexuality is a sin, who marry the same gender and do not believe they are committing any sin. Bisexuals are attracted to both genders and often choose to limit dating/marriage to the opposite gender for safety and social acceptance, especially for religious people. Children result from these marriages/relationships naturally. And of course there are a variety of ways for gays and lesbians (and especially bisexuals) to have biological children that doesn’t even necessarily require sperm donation and such.
But all this is a derailment, I apologize. I really was just making a silly joke not wanting to have yet another thread about LGBT issues. Sorry to all can we get back to discussing marrying corpses?
I do think you don’t understand what “bisexual” means, though, Thomas. Lol. I’ve never met a bisexual person who hasn’t dated or married someone of the opposite gender, me included. It’s certainly easier to do so, and if you have a moral opposition to homosexual behavior it’s the moral option, and people are much less likely to hate on you. But anyway, yes, it’s derailment and I’m sorry. No more jokes, bad Jack.
Del I do think you are correct that she is attempting to gain the benefits that she would have gotten if her fiance had not unfortunately passed. I think that’s fine, it may help her deal with his passing if her life is just a bit easier by getting these benefits and I’m sure public recognition of their bond will help her in her grief a bit.
I feel bad for joking about it, it was quite insensitive of me. I’m sure she was devastated and this is part of her grieving process. I wish her and her family the best and hope she finds someone living who makes her happy some day, after she heals.
I know all that, I’m not Martian you know. Been in th US for 31 years now, okay…
No reason for LibertyBelle to bring up other parts of the world – not relevant to the US and no reason for you Jack to bring up what happend in my generation – not relevant either.
Let’t concentrate on the here and now and not muddy the waters with how it used to be…
Well um you said “No marriage is obligatory EVER LibertyBelle. ” and I was pointing out that that’s actually not true… ;)
But anyWHO. This is just a big rabbit trail (maybe a bigfoot trail?).
But yeah I think the consensus here is that the woman was probably trying to get social benefits of marriage and have her grief recognized, albeit in a strange way and perhaps an actual wedding with a dead groom is best reserved for horror movies.
Well, that kind of stuff is still going on. Christian LGBT people believe that their sexuality is sinful and so they end up marrying/dating the opposite gender and produce children from those unions. Sometimes the marriage fails for whatever reason, and the person will choose to enter a gay relationship even if it’s wrong of them to do so. Most gay and bisexual people who are raising children are raising their own biological children, adoption is still illegal for gay and single people in many states. Sometimes a gay man and a lesbian will choose to have a child together and “co-parent” in that way, as well. There’s a lot of that going on. Wrong or not, those parents need the benefits and support that straight parents do.
More like Bigfoot trail or may be just very straighforward? But at any case, let’s just move on. Note to Jack: no more derailments as some may actually want to pick up on your thoughts :)
Jack regarding yourt April 10, 2014 at 4:21 pm comment. I agree, at least until you said:
“…and I’m sure public recognition of their bond will help her in her grief a bit. ”
If the French think that the recognition has to be this extreme as to allow for a marriage btw a dead person and one who is alive, than it just gives an entire new meaning to grief counseling. Well, I am so glad I no longer live in any geographic proximity to France :)
I know you are pressing forward Jack but this thread is about dead people :)
Hey, I apologized for my stupid joke. These conversations make me really depressed anyway I’m just practically incapable of ignoring them lol. But yes. Dead people and marriage.
Drink a Manhattan tonight like I will and this shall pass :)
I don’t drink! And I’m obsessive by nature in case you haven’t noticed lol.
a same-sex couple can never be a marriage. – well that simply isn’t true. Many of them can now show you a legal document stating that that is exactly what they are a part of, a marriage. And they are occuring more and more. The laws are saying ‘yes’. Marriage is a legal concept, not a religious one. The religious aspect is ritual.
They don’t have children but adopt and yes, adoption is a noble endeavor. – your statement is not correct in all cases.
Depends how one defines marriage.- the law does that.
Yes LibertyBelle, well said (10:05am)
“If the French think that the recognition has to be this extreme as to allow for a marriage btw a dead person and one who is alive, than it just gives an entire new meaning to grief counseling.”
I don’t think I explained myself well. I meant that maybe public recognition of what they meant to each other, with her family and friends and his family and friends, may help her along in the healing process. I don’t know, I’ve thankfully never lost a spouse or fiance to death. But maybe a public celebration of what someone means to you may help you move on if you lose someone that close. I’ve lost the vast majority of my friends (to drugs, ODs are common and junkies don’t live long generally), and most of them only had small little services for close family and “non drug” friends. I think it would have helped the pain of loss to have acknowledgment that I lost someone dear to me too. I think that might be something that’s going through her head in her decision to actually have a wedding instead of simply filing court papers.
You got to look at her perspective. She was engaged, they were probably already planning their wedding. Then that was all gone. No wedding, no kids, no future. Maybe this postmortem wedding is her way of celebrating what he meant to her and acknowledging the future that she can never have with him.
And now I am very sad. :( I feel sad for her and I hope she is able to cope.
No, I’m not Blue Velvet. I’ve never gone under another name.
I’m not comparing the LIVES of stillborn babies. I’m saying that in legal terms, it’s very similar to writing birth certificates to those lost before birth.
Neither will bring the lost back to life. But a child who is stillborn was never actually born. By definition, birth is the delivery of a living baby. This by no means makes those stillborn less important than babies who get a chance at life, it just means they were never born. Therefore, signing a birth certificate (which is being debated in certain states) only serves one purpose, and it’s the same purpose of “post humous” marriages: to provide a sense of comfort or closure to the parents/financee. It, I guess, makes the situation feel more real, or helps confirm the position of the person gone. You ARE my baby, even though you weren’t born. You ARE my husband, even though you passed before we could marry. I don’t agree with the logic, but it’s the logic of a person overwhelmed by grief. I would like to think if I ever ensured the tragedy of losing a baby during pregnancy I wouldn’t need a birth certificate. If anything, for me personally it would only be a reminder of what DIDN’T happen. But I understand those who feel otherwise. Likewise, I like to think I would always know what I had with my partner was real and our love is forever without a marriage certificate, but I do understand those who want one.
By the way, the original connection between the two is I don’t think it has any real legal benefits other than comfort. I don’t think the “wife” will receive marriage benefits or the baby will have medical records, etc.
An inconsolable French woman who goes by the name Pascale
Or, as some people would say, a woman named Pascale.
And if one can marry a dead person, why not a trio consisting of one living wife and two corpses, one male and one female? Where does it end?
Laura, for an incredibly modest investment of time, you could have found out that French law allows for a token recognition of a posthumous marriage under extremely limited circumstances: when the French president personally grants a direct request from the surviving partner, following a police investigation that has established that the couple was preparing to marry but that one partner died before the ceremony. The woman is not married to a corpse. She is a widow. Yeah, it’s weird, but it has an end, the French know exactly where that end is, and you could have found out where that end is in thirty seconds. So the answer to your question, “I’m lazy! Does that mean that French people can get threeway dead gay-married?” is “No.”
Seriously, if you want to sneer at the woman’s grief, then sneer at her. Why be coy about it? No one comes to this blog expecting empathy or compassion.
People who comment here are empathetic and compassionate a lot of times Lisa. But I do agree that the tone of this thread wasn’t nice. I do regret making jokes about this, it wasn’t kind of me, and I feel really bad now.
We all have our opinions on variety of matters LisaC. You are given a forum here to discuss issues freely using your own perspective. Its called freedom of thought and expression!
In case you have not paid attention, Laura concentrated on the act of a posthumous marriage and the meaning of vowels. Nowhere did she minimize the young lady or make any detrimental comments about her character. Describing this woman as inconsolable is factually correct. Draw your own conclusion why?
If you are going to criticize someone, get your ducks in a row first…..
The meaning of vowels? Don’t they lend meaning to consonants to make words which can be pronounced?
Isn’t the marriage part of consoling her?
“Isn’t the marriage part of consoling her?”
Will it not be a daily reminder for her being married to a DEAD PERSON? Do you think this expression of grief will be healthy for her in the long run? Do you believe she will ever recover from her inconsolable state given that she is married to a DEAD PERSON?
Grief counseling is about recovering from a loss NOT enabling to further deepen it. Makes sense “reality?”
I just noticed your correction of me “reality.” If one has nothing of substance to say, the best tactic is to play an English professor. Good job and keep it up ;)
Jack: I do regret making jokes about this, it wasn’t kind of me, and I feel really bad now.
Jack, this too shall pass.
I guess this is one case where she really is ‘robbing the grave.’
: P
Thomas, again, she’s not married to a dead person but rather a widow.
That is not the case LibertBelle. Look up Doug above. The French are multiple cards short of a full deck….
What is the meaning of a posthumous marriage?
Uh, Doug was making a joke.
And the point is to make the woman a widow, to legitimize her relationship.
His joke is true not explicitly of course but figuratively-speaking Pascale should let him rest in peace. Living belong to the living not the dead.
I’m not arguing there. Just saying I can see where she’s coming from.
The definition of being widowed worldwide carries the understanding of marrying a person who is not dead but alive. When that person whom we were married to (when s/he actually was alive and able to verbalize their vows) dies, than we can refer to ourselves as a widow/er.
Well unless, some espouse the progressive view and the French most definitely do :)
“thomas r.”, did you not think that allowing her to complete something would then enable her to reach a point of completion from which she could undertake a full grieving process. Rather than feeling her plans have been curtailed perhaps she can now feel some level of fulfillment or achievement and move forward. She can be a widow rather than a near-widow. You and I cannot know her thoughts and feelings nor what will provide what she needs. The whole world doesn’t, and needn’t, function according to some blinkered view.
The correction was more about the situation which it provided rather than a dig at you. It was funny, not you.
In case you have not paid attention, Laura concentrated on the act of a posthumous marriage and the meaning of vowels. Nowhere did she minimize the young lady or make any detrimental comments about her character.
I didn’t say that Laura said anything to the detriment Pascale’s character. Rather, she gave a derisive rendition of a wedding vow in order to mock the young woman’s participation in what Laura considers an absurdity. In short, she sneered at her.
According to the NYT, incidentally, in a posthumous marriage ceremony the vows are replaced by a reading of the presidential decree declaring that the couple’s marriage began the night before the late partner’s death.
Well unless, some espouse the progressive view and the French most definitely do.
I’m guessing the odds that you can define “progressive” and explain how this situation meets that definition are very, very remote.
Moving forward; advancing.
The current usage of “progressive” is an umbrella term describing individuals holding left-wing beliefs and ideologies.
Posthumous marriage definitely fits the definition..
Posthumous marriage definitely fits the definition.
It doesn’t fit any actual definition of “progressive.” But I’m guessing that your definition is “Things that Thomas R thinks are icky.”
Megan,
Instead of bringing our beloved children into this and whether you think they were “born” or not how about you answer this question.
Should a woman be able to marry her dead fiance???
Why or why not?
LisaC. Okay fine defend posthumous marriage to your heart’s content. Can’t argue with anyone who things that marrying a DEAD person somehow completes you.
Would you accept progressivism defined as the “twilight zone?” Kind of fits….
Thomas, I did not defend posthumous marriage. I pointed out that the words you are using do not mean what you think they mean.
LisaC: you use words that dance around the topic of posthumous marriage but the content of your comments thus far tells me that you lend support to it, at least from the perspective of the woman.
Seems to me our differences are semantic in nature only.
but the content of your comments thus far tells me that you lend support to it, at least from the perspective of the woman.
You have an active imagination, Thomas R.
“Seriously, if you want to sneer at the woman’s grief, then sneer at her. Why be coy about it? No one comes to this blog expecting empathy or compassion. “
So is my imagination still active or you just can’t remember what you write LisaC? In bold are very pertinent parts of your response. You defended this woman, given the content of this comment.
So my assessment as cited in your April 14, 2014 at 9:32 pm response, is one hundred factual.
You defended this woman, given the content of this comment.
I conveyed my belief that it is uncharitable to deride a woman for the way in which she mourned for her fiance, noted the inaccuracies in the story, and answered the moronic questions the author posed. None of those things constitutes support for the practice of posthumous marriage.
So my assessment as cited in your April 14, 2014 at 9:32 pm response, is one hundred factual.
No, your assessment is not 100% factual, because even if your assessment were accurate, a conclusion about someone else’s thoughts is by definition an inference. For example, I know it to be fact that I have no intention of putting in the time that it would take to teach you the difference between fact and inference, but I can only infer that you lack the capacity to understand that difference.
You have issues LisaC :(
Obviously you can’t read your own comments. By exclaiming that “no one comes to this blog expecting empathy or compassion” you are a proponent of same for this woman. So this premise is correct that you defended this woman. Re-read your original comment again.
And also, ”moronic questions the author posed” according to you obviously. “You have issues” comment from me was related to you degrading Laura Loo across threads. You need truly to re-examine your obsession…
I trust no mod gave LisaC a “like” for comparing Laura Loo’s question to moronic.