Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Marriage: Better in the Dark Ages?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Civil Liberties Donate to DU
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:11 AM
Original message
Marriage: Better in the Dark Ages?
Marriage: Better in the Dark Ages?
by: Bob
Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 14:42:11 PM EST

Stephanie Coontz, a professor of history at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington and the author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage," offers a concise summary of several thousand years of history in a New York Times piece today. Her conclusion, phrased as tentative but which I suppose she endorses:

Perhaps it's time to revert to a much older marital tradition. Let churches decide which marriages they deem "licit." But let couples - gay or straight - decide if they want the legal protections and obligations of a committed relationship.

Here is her argument:

Why do people - gay or straight - need the state's permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn't, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents' agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.

For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple's wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows - even out alone by the haystack - the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

Is it possible that what we think of today as progressive is really just trying to revert to a custom in keeping with the period between the Roman empire and the Englightenment? Were loving couples better off under, for example, Charlemagne and William the Conqueror than today?

More:
http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9524
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
JoDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. Big Problems with "plight-trough" marriages
While discussing the history of marriage, we must also take a look at why the more formal marriage laws and traditions came around. While it was once common for couples to simply declare themselves married (what was sometimes called a plight-trough marriage) there were a lot of problems with these arrangements. The big one was that one member of the couple would change his or her mind and claim that the exchange of vows never happened. This could create a bad situation for the woman, particularly if she was in the middle or upper class. She was no longer a virgin, and as far as she was concerned she was properly married at the moment that she lost her virginity. However, if she was not properly married, that meant that she had fooled around, and could thus be branded a whore. That made it harder for her to make a later legitimate marriage. It was not unheard of for men to declare marriage to a woman and basically dump her after the honeymoon--with little reprecussions for him. The woman could be left without financial support, possibly disowned by her family, and maybe even pregnant with no way to care for the child.

Also, if the parents disagreed with the child's choice of partner, they could simply claim that the marriage never really happened. Then, if her family was influential enough, they might be able to get local church officials to declare the woman to be a virgin. This is believed to have happened in the case of a young Anne Boelyn and the son of the Duke of Northumberland.

Having government-issued marriage licenses and certificates curtailed these practices. They are also the reasons why witnesses must watch the ceremony for a marriage to be legitimate. Then, if someone tried to back out later, the witnesses could be called in to testify that the vows were exchanged.

BTW, self marriage and self divorce were widely practiced on the American frontier up to the mid 1800's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
HumanBeast Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. No State In Marriage
I like the idea of privatized marriage. It does not let the whole world know about your business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mr_liberty Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-04-08 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. agree 100%
Exactly. I don't need the government to license me to be married. Individuals are perfectly capable of writing up their own marriage contracts. This immediately resolves all issues regarding gay marriage. Gay marriage is only an issue because the government is unnecessarily involved in marriage to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Feb 13th 2025, 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Civil Liberties Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC