Did Medieval Europe Sanction Gay Unions?

According to Allan Tulchin of the Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania, the answer is yes, although his evidence is anything but conclusive:

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.

Therefore, because there was a contract between two men that shared the same household, this is now considered evidence of medieval gay unions? I think not.

Turchin argues that although most of these *unions* were between blood brothers, many times they were between homosexual men:

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."

So, then let's have the evidence. Cricket....cricket...cricket.

Saying that there is considerable evidence doesn't mean there is considerable evidence, one has to actually show the evidence for anything to be credible. I know I don't need to tell you this, but someone needs to tell Turchin.

As his final piece of evidence/non-evidence, Turchin comes up with this pearl:

"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.”

*Suspecting* doesn't equate to evidence...saying it's *impossible to prove either way* certainly doesn't wash either.

Let's call a spade a spade here: Turchin is about the worst historian I have ever come across. His evidence amounts to pure speculation and that's it. It sounds more like he's fantasizing than anything.

As a side note, even if he was right and there were medieval gay unions, it wasn't referred to as *gay marriage*.

Hey, Turchin, did you get your degree out of a Cracker Jack box? Haha