FA+
Shop
On Marriage (a lesson in history)
16 years ago
General
Prompted by more recent arguing about state laws and how passing state-wide anti-discrimination laws to protect gays could magically lead to "the destruction of traditional marriage", I decided to take a look at some of the history of marriage.
*WARNING* It's not exciting or particularly compelling, just a mild historical rant. You can leave now if you're not interested :P
It would seem, from limited reading so far, that up until the mid 16th century the church(es) had absolutely nothing to do with any form of marriage. Most were matters of convenience or political gain.
Early Greeks and Romans had no formal laws or recognitions of marriage or divorce, such things were left entirely to the families involved.
Come mid 16th century in Europe, the church started to get involved. Originally they just registered marriages but that wasn't even required. Shortly after the Roman Catholic church decided to really get involved and decreed that marriages weren't real unless the church said so.
It wasn't until about 200 years later that the Church of England (or rather, a specific Lord) followed a similar suit, requiring a church officiated ceremony for a marriage, 100 years later that requirement got dropped and the state recognized civil ceremonies as well as religious ones.
Our laws are basically extensions of those in Europe at the time of our departure.
What all this tells me is that the church, and even love, basically has had no true bearing on marriage for most of human history to date. The religious fervor over 'traditional' vs. same-sex marriage is founded entirely upon the fact that the Catholic church (a body known for strict control of its congregation) decided IT wouldn't recognize a Catholic marriage without a church ceremony, and the fact that a single English lord decreed that the church be party to marriages.
Prior to that, marriages were matters of money and prestige, forming alliances. The fact that almost all marriages were between a man and a woman stemmed solely from the fact that a child is a direct link to both families and thus a stronger political tie than anything else.
The so called 'traditional marriage' is utter rubbish. Its origins are in greed and self-protection, not love and gospel. Our current marriage laws have ALREADY obliterated the 'traditional' marriage.
*WARNING* It's not exciting or particularly compelling, just a mild historical rant. You can leave now if you're not interested :P
It would seem, from limited reading so far, that up until the mid 16th century the church(es) had absolutely nothing to do with any form of marriage. Most were matters of convenience or political gain.
Early Greeks and Romans had no formal laws or recognitions of marriage or divorce, such things were left entirely to the families involved.
Come mid 16th century in Europe, the church started to get involved. Originally they just registered marriages but that wasn't even required. Shortly after the Roman Catholic church decided to really get involved and decreed that marriages weren't real unless the church said so.
It wasn't until about 200 years later that the Church of England (or rather, a specific Lord) followed a similar suit, requiring a church officiated ceremony for a marriage, 100 years later that requirement got dropped and the state recognized civil ceremonies as well as religious ones.
Our laws are basically extensions of those in Europe at the time of our departure.
What all this tells me is that the church, and even love, basically has had no true bearing on marriage for most of human history to date. The religious fervor over 'traditional' vs. same-sex marriage is founded entirely upon the fact that the Catholic church (a body known for strict control of its congregation) decided IT wouldn't recognize a Catholic marriage without a church ceremony, and the fact that a single English lord decreed that the church be party to marriages.
Prior to that, marriages were matters of money and prestige, forming alliances. The fact that almost all marriages were between a man and a woman stemmed solely from the fact that a child is a direct link to both families and thus a stronger political tie than anything else.
The so called 'traditional marriage' is utter rubbish. Its origins are in greed and self-protection, not love and gospel. Our current marriage laws have ALREADY obliterated the 'traditional' marriage.
My good man, thank you for the detailed history. I knew a much briefer version which is why when people say crap about traditional marriage, I face paw.
I think its more likely that if gays were granted marriage rights, that the divorce rate might go down. From my experience, when a gay couple decides to stay together, they fricken stay together. What's even more awesome is they do it without having legal protections or that little marriage certificate.
The only reason why marriage is really all that much of a "big deal" to me is that if something happens to Dattas, I might not be allowed to be there since I am just the "girlfriend". I would not be considered family, even if we had lived together for say 20 years. It also affords legal protection for the kids so that daddy can't just up and walk away (which is not going to happen with Dattas, thank the gods).
Marriage to me is more of a legal institution than one of love or religion. If I wanted a religious ceremony, I could do that without the marriage license. Just walk down to the nearest temple and there we go. As for love, I already know Dattas is my forever mate. I don't need a little paper to bind me to him. I am already bound to him heart and soul.