History of Marriage

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Are you familiar with the history of marriage and customs and laws. Marriage customs reflect public need and opinion.

It is very hard to be able to establish a true date on the first marriages although the Old Testament in the Bible does mention a little about marriage as it was considered a family and household affair. The oldest male relative was the caretaker of the girls and the prospective husband would ask the father for the girl after first bringing him gifts to win his approval. The mother was dominated by the father and had no choice in the matter. The father would transfer the daughter to the prospective husband in public as this showed that he approved this transfer and that the groom had the father's approval. After this transfer the bride and groom ate a meal together with the families and then the groom took the bride home. In the Old Testament of the Bible there is no mention of a formal exchange of vows or of a preacher or priest being present at this union.


In the time of the Roman Empire (17 B.C.- A.D. 476) the lower classes who became Christians later had common law or free marriages. The father would deliver the bride and the agreement of the two was called a consensus to wed. Then eventually as Christianity spread the church interpreted a "free" marriage as a conscience marriage. This agreement meant that each partner was to keep the marriage vows and the marriage intact.


There were Romans who were very wealthy who would sign documents consisting of listing property rights and letting all know that they wanted this union to be legalized and not to be thought of as a common law marriage. Thus this began the official recording of marriages as we do today. Roman men could dissolve the marriage any time as it was a male privilege, not one accorded to females.


In A.D. 527-565 during the rein of Justinian lawyers drew up laws called the Justinian Code and this was a regulation of their daily life including marriage. Up until the time of the Justinian Code just saying you were married was enough.


Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony.


English weddings in the thirteenth century among the upper class became religious events but the church only blessed the marriage and did not want a legal commitment. In 1563 the Council of Trent required that Catholic marriages be celebrated at a Catholic church by a priest and before two witnesses. By the eighteenth century the wedding was a religious event in all countries of Europe.


In Colonial times in North America the customs of the old countries were followed. There were some who only wanted a civil ceremony and not a religious ceremony. The Colonists who wanted civil marriages passed laws to this effect.


Civil magistrates would perform marriage ceremonies and they would even include prayers in the ceremony.


Viriginia was a colony that stayed with the customs of the church and did not permit anyone to have a civil marriage ceremony as they followed the Church of England. By the end of the eighteenth century both religious and civil marriage ceremonies were legal in American.


In European countries today, civil marriage ceremonies are legal as in America. Even in England, the couple can choose to have either a religious or civil ceremony.
 
Why did I post this?

To show that there is no such thing as "thousands of years of tradition" in regards to Marriage. Nor is Marriage as we know it is neither infallible nor inflexable.
 
With this in mind:

Now a few years ago I used to live with a girl who had not only a spectacular pair of breasts, but a gay sister as well. I dunno if the gay sister had great boobs too because, well, she was gay. But anyway, this sister lived in California with her -- of what's the politically correct term -- life partner? Yeah, so these two lesbians have been with each other for a like eleven years and they were as committed to each other as any heterosexual couple I know. But since they obviously can't have any children without some help, they decided one of them gets artificially inseminated. They took a look at their jobs, and decided the one who had the lesser paying job would be the one to carry the baby, since her taking time off from work wouldn't be as financially straining. Nine months later, poof they've got a kid.

The first thing that struck me as a little unfair is only my girlfriend's sister -- the one who actually carried the baby -- could be listed on the birth certificate as the parent. Granted even if they could they'd either have to play paper-scissors-rock to see who gets listed as the father, but still it struck me as a little unfair that only one of them was legally allowed to be recognized as a parent. I mean hey, ya wait around for that long putting up with world class bitchiness beyond belief, you're gonna want some public recognition, right?

The next quirk they came across was health insurance. As it so happened, the birth mother's health insurance coverage was not as robust as the her partner's insurance. You know how that goes, better job and all that, right? Well the baby's medical coverage could not be claimed against this better policy for obvious reasons -- she wasn't legally the child's parent. So this ended up costing them a lot of money out of pocket for medical expenses, and there were even some areas where the child didn't get the same level of care as she could have if she had been covered under the better insurance policy. Again, it seemed unfair not only to the parents financially, but to the baby in regards to her health care.

And suppose for the sake of argument, that while the three of them were driving home from the hospital, there was a car accident and the birth mom was rendered brain dead. If it were a husband and wife deal, the surviving spouse would have legal control over medical treatment (or ceasing of it) for their injured partner, plus have no problem securing sole custody of the baby. But in this case, the surviving lezbo would have no legal recourse despite having just as much time and energy invested as a male partner would.

All these issues because same sex marriages are currently illegal. Okay. So let me think for a minute, that if they were legal, how would they effect my life. Would I have to pay more taxes? No. Would married gay people get a special check out line at the supermarket to get through line faster than me? No. Do they get their own special lane to avoid traffic jams? No. Do they get cheaper car insurance? No. Free car? No. Free socks? No.

So my question would be... what the fuck do I care if gay people want to be married?

They're not fighting to have two guys dressed in wedding gowns, mascara and five o'clock shadows to prance down the aisle of your local church. They're not fighting for the right to fuck on the cross-town bus. They're not fighting to have Hers-and-Hers bathrooms at the mall. All the benefits and rights they're fighting for, wouldn't impact my life one bit if they did get them, so why the hell would I oppose it? It's like going out and saying you oppose blue socks. You can't see em anyway, so who the fuck cares?

The only people that could possibly have a valid argument against anti-same sex marriages are the religious groups. "Homosexuality is an abomination!" they say. Well, okay, that's your take on it that's cool. Fair enough. But then there's two things to consider when you enter that realm, too. One, where the hell were you when priests were treating eight year old children like fuck toys? I didn't hear you say too much then, in fact you kind of looked at your shoes, mumbled something about out of court settlements, and then wandered off into the crowds. I don't hear you protest when atheists get married. I don't hear you protest when atheists get married in a church. I don't hear you protest when religious people get married on a cruise ship snot hanging drunk after grabbing the nearest vacationer to serve as their witness. So please, if you're going to get all high and fucking mighty, at least have the courtesy to do it evenly across the board.

And secondly, this situation my friend, is a perfect example of the REAL reason behind the separation of Church and State. It's not just a springboard for some loudmouthed asshole to use and get his name in the paper when he wants to talk about the Pledge of Allegiance, but instead a genuine reason why Judge Judy needs to leave her Bible/Koran/Torah/Whatever at home.

What if I created a religion where marriage was illegal altogether, would the government have to rule all marriages null and void? What if all the 43,000 people in the United Kingdom who checked their religion as "Jedi" all decided they're never going to get laid and decided they could marry their dog? Would governments then have to recognize those marriages? The answer is no in both cases, because the whole purpose of the separation of Church and State is Uncle Sam can't pick and choose what religious movements they're going to acknowledge and which they aren't. Churchgoers have every right in the world to voice their opinions in a public forum, but when it comes time to making laws it's time to have a nice tall glass of Shut-The-Fuck-Up. The only thing Uncle Sam can do is to make sure everyone, man, woman, black, white, tall, short, cute, ugly, straight or gay, gets a fair shake.
Argue this one out. :D
 
I agree with that quote in the last post...it's my beliefs exactly actually...

But...shouldn't this be in RW?
 
It is appropiate to the LL unless it turns into a more serious debate. Other than that, it is merely a history lesson.
 
Unh, I posted some wikipedia links around here somewhere on the history of marriage... where did I put them...

*off to have a gander*
 
A couple of interesting dialogues on marriage and same-sex unions:

Marriages
Same-sex marriages

I particularly like this:

Historic alterations in the customs and protocols of marriage give rise to the argument that marriage is dynamic and same-gender acceptance is the latest evolution of marriage. Some societies have from ancient times permitted spouses to have multiple concurrent marriages while many societies discourage this practice today. Having more than one marriage at the same time is called polygamy for men and polyandry for women. Marriages that involve more than two people at one time in a single act of matrimony are considered to be a "group marriage" and are even more rare.
 
MrBishop said:
Why did I post this?

To show that there is no such thing as "thousands of years of tradition" in regards to Marriage. Nor is Marriage as we know it is neither infallible nor inflexable.

I notice you didn't put any same sex marriages in there.
 
Gonz said:
I notice you didn't put any same sex marriages in there.

what argument will you guys use when 1000 years from now same sex marriages go back deep into recorded history? Ive never really understood the argument of "Its new and I dont like it so it shouldnt be allowed!"
 
Looking up at the history of marriage it would seem that it was more of an evolution of the worlds largest private club rather than any kind of 'godly law'. It was hijacked by religion somewhere along the way... and thats what needs to be rooted out. Make marriage a defacto religious ceremony of spiritual union with no civil implications whatsoever. Then you can also be joined in a civil sense to whomever you want as a life partner in regards to the legalistic mumbo-jumbo like rights of inheritences and co-signatories to loans and whatnot. Give god one slice of the pie and give the government theirs. That being said, anyone can then marry their cousin, horse, a mile-marker, or last nights discarded pizza for all that matters. All you have to do is find a minister of the first church of Midget-Elvis-Alien-Lookalikes of Dubuke, IA that is willing to look you straight in the eye and feel convinced that you are spiritually tied to (he/she/it) and that the service fee check doesn't bounce. If its a spiritual contract, let it remain purely spiritual.

I disagree with the 'partner' being listed as the father as that has nothing to do with bragging rights as a parent. It is a matter of genealogical record that is used a dozen different ways that would be redered useless if toyed with in the manner they desire. Being listed as a parent on a birth certificate is a bunch of crap. Thats not who daddy is. Daddy is the one that the little kid looks up to on a daily basis and calls daddy... the one raising the kid, not a sperm donor.
 
Gonz said:
I notice you didn't put any same sex marriages in there.

Didn't have to...consider it an open statement to those who would use the phrase "It's been like this for thousands of years." far too easily.

**Edit: To be perfectly honest. I didn't want to start another fight about gay-marriage. Thats why I didn't put it into the RW and tried to keep the first bit historical only. The second bit...I'm sure you'll be surprised to find out...was written by a dyed-in-the-wool gun-totin' Pro-Bush Republican.

http://www.ehowa.com/mythoughts/gaymarriage.shtml
 
MrBishop said:
**Edit: To be perfectly honest. I didn't want to start another fight about gay-marriage. Thats why I didn't put it into the RW and tried to keep the first bit historical only. The second bit...I'm sure you'll be surprised to find out...was written by a dyed-in-the-wool gun-totin' Pro-Bush Republican.

http://www.ehowa.com/mythoughts/gaymarriage.shtml

Yes you did. I can hear your guffaws from where I'm sitting now. :D
 
Back
Top