Marriage.

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

In the paper today is a solution to the same-sex marriage issue: Remove marriage from the clutches of church and state. That is, return marriage to how it was done prior to 1215 when the Catholic Church made a religious service mandatory. Before 1215 people simply exchanged vows and cohabitated (or Common Law).

I mean, who you partner up with is nobody's business, right?

The problem wuz: Kiddies were doing it without parental permission, and a few drunken party people awoke the next day to discover their new spouse wasnt so enchanting in the full light of day. So the Church got involved, to make sure momma & daddy knew what Sis & Junior wuz up to, and to ensure that you got a good, sober look at your beloved.

The state got involved when the churches were stubborn about divorce prohibitions and re-marriage. The state provided an alternative route.

 

[lloyd_5]

James, I think it was rather the reverse of what you say.

Marriage always was a secular, legal thing - very capitalist, as it was all about the passing and controlling of property. Bastard children really threw the inheritance line into confusion and since girls were usually wed and mothers before age 14 until fairly recently, I don't think 'kiddies having sex' had much to do with it.

Why is adultery such a problem? Because illegitimate children cause problems with the passing of crowns or property. That is why the religious authorities kidnapped legal control - they were encouraged to, much as you see today in the attempts to impose Sharia law over secular law in many countries.

Can you explain to me exactly why eating pork, having sex with anyone or coveting your neighbor's ass is a sin against a deity.

Having said that, I agree totally with you - religious marriage and legal couplings should be completely separated. In most of Europe, you need to have two ceremonies - a legal one in the town hall then - if you want to - a religious one that has no legal effect.

In a secular country, surely no-one has the right to deny legal partnerships between any couple? Let the churches and mosques argue about how many angels can dance on the pinhead of marriage.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LLOYD

Nope.

Someone did the research. The church got involved with marriage circa 1215, and marriage became a state interest in the 17th Century. Prior to 1215 no sanctioned ceremony was required...period. That's why Common Law cohabitation was legal until recent times.

I suppose you and I are addressing two distinct aspects of marriage, and this creates the confusion.

You see, the Common Law takes precedent until legislators create law that replaces it. Like, parents have a common law right to custody and control of their children. Or...you have a common law right to defend yourself against violence. Or a common law right to have an income. So there was time in Britain when people had a common law right to a spouse and children.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

LLOYD

Nope.

Someone did the research. The church got involved with marriage circa 1215, and marriage became a state interest in the 17th Century. Prior to 1215 no sanctioned ceremony was required...period. That's why Common Law cohabitation was legal until recent times.

I suppose you and I are addressing two distinct aspects of marriage, and this creates the confusion.

You see, the Common Law takes precedent until legislators create law that replaces it. Like, parents have a common law right to custody and control of their children. Or...you have a common law right to defend yourself against violence. Or a common law right to have an income. So there was time in Britain when people had a common law right to a spouse and children.

It may be sematics, but I think your research is badly flawed. For the Christians, the miracle at the marriage of Canaan shows marriage predates christianity.

I won't give all references here, but please look at the secular marriage rites in Mesopotamia, Ancient Greece, Egypt and Rome.

Secular law predated religious law by many centuries.

Common Law is NOT law - just precedent and usage - it didn't exist before the 11th century, sorry.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I would like to point out that there wasn't a meaningful difference between church and state as recently as the Roman Empire... we can argue that religious marriage is a new thing, because it was a state function before that... or that its an old school thing, because state-sponsored marriage is a new bag...


...but there isn't a sharp distinction between the functions of either prior to 3rd CE.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JOE

I'm referencing the Brits, not the Zulus in Africa or Crackers hidden in Rats Ass, Wisconsin.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ELFIN

I didnt do the research. Some perfesser did it. And perfessers dont lie or confuse things!

Like Joe, you inject the Nicnac and Paddywac Indians to refute ar argument about Brits.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

ELFIN

I didnt do the research. Some perfesser did it. And perfessers dont lie or confuse things!

Like Joe, you inject the Nicnac and Paddywac Indians to refute ar argument about Brits.

Hey... asshead. Nowhere did you say "Brits". You said marriage, church, dates, and common law. That, by itself, isn't isolated to one island or one culture.

I appreciate your reasonable and considerate response though. (sarcasm)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Uh Joe? What church and common law are you referencing with respect to the Romans?

 

[R. Richard]

If you do the research, marriage came about when people shifted from hunting/gathering to farming. In a hunter/gatherer society, marriage would have been insane. Hunter/getherers operate in small bands and they need a maximum mixing of genes to avoid becoming inbred and extinct. Normally hunter/gatherer band swap female children to get as much genetic diversity as practical.

When people switched to agriculture, it became necessary to know who owned the land. Marriage was a contract that allowed the [supposed] children of a farmer and his wife to inherit the land.

 

[Oblimo]

Uh Joe? What church and common law are you referencing with respect to the Romans?

Possibly he meant the Roman law of private law countries, such as France, Italy, and, uh, Louisiana.

 

[Oblimo]

Before 1215 people simply exchanged vows and cohabitated (or Common Law).

The Common Law did not exist before the sometime in the 1100s. Henry II created it.

I mean, who you partner up with is nobody's business, right?

It's the King's business when it determines primogeniture, and the common law principle of primogeniture meant the difference between peace and civil war.

The state got involved when the churches were stubborn about divorce prohibitions and re-marriage. The state provided an alternative route.

You should like that, JBJ. The three English court systems--Common, Canon, and Equity--were in competition for the market of dispute resolution, after all. Jurisprudence developed through market forces.

Truth is, marriage was not in the sphere of state control because there was no sanctioned "state" in England as we understand it between the collapse of the Roman colonies until Henry II. Between and even afterward, England was a melting pot of rivalling methods of enforcement.

 

[amicus]

JBJ...if I may corrupt your thread with a small injection of literary romantic thought here...

Both volume one and two of my ongoing native American saga, circa 8,000 BC, on the cusp of agrarian existence feature the main character, Chief of the tribe, or village, as, gasp, falling in LOVE!, God forbid, with a woman and desiring to take her unto himself and his protection and nurture, til death do us part.

Now, within the realm of the possible, and almost anything is, the joining of two people in such a manner rather evolved, I would think, with customs and traditions germane to their experience and perhaps by the legends and lores of the people from which they sprung.

Perhaps an understanding, from the bottom up, from the early origins, as someone hinted at, may provide a better foundation for understanding modern social attachments?

Thus, my little injection of romantic humor be, just what part did/does, individual attraction play in this thing called marriage?

Amicus with mirth....

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

I get your point. The article in question advocates using Common Law to remedy same sex marriages. I have no idea if the writer pulled her facts from her ass or got them from the Pure Institute for Advanced Marxist Hallucinations.

I suspect most British people were attached to a manor and lord, and required his approval for marriage as long as feudalism existed.

 

[Vermilion]

AMICUS

I get your point. The article in question advocates using Common Law to remedy same sex marriages. I have no idea if the writer pulled her facts from her ass or got them from the Pure Institute for Advanced Marxist Hallucinations.

I suspect most British people were attached to a manor and lord, and required his approval for marriage as long as feudalism existed.

Certainly that's how England was arranged for many centuries... I wouldn't like to answer for Scotland, Wales and Ireland... Scotland had fiefs and fiefdoms I believe, which may have been similar, although I don't know enough about Scottish history to be sure, and Wales was a principality, so may have had similar arrangements, but again, I can't be sure. Just remember that during the period you're talking about, pre 13thC yes?, the United Kingdom didn't exist. Unification didn't occur until 1707 and 1800 (Ireland). Before that there was separate rule and, probably, laws.

x
V

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

VERMILION

Scotland, Ireland, Wales had their own feudal systems, but generally speaking, clan chieftains etc ruled their flocks and made the important decisions before WILLIAM came along. I mean, the entire area of the present UK was filled with strife and conflicts and invasions up to WILLIAM.

 

[Vermilion]

VERMILION

Scotland, Ireland, Wales had their own feudal systems, but generally speaking, clan chieftains etc ruled their flocks and made the important decisions before WILLIAM came along. I mean, the entire area of the present UK was filled with strife and conflicts and invasions up to WILLIAM.

You do realise, don't you, that it is not necessary to capitalise the *entire* word when dealing with a proper noun...? Merely the first letter would suffice.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

VERMILION it's customary to capitalize the names of Royalty.