The history of traditional marriage

[Engyo]

Our modern civil marriage customs arise from the Roman civil law with an overlay
of Anglo-Saxon custom. Roman law was very clear. Unlike the Jews and others,
marriage was monogamous. A man could have no more than one wife at a time.
Until the rule of Augustus, marriage was a family affair and the state did not
interfere. That said there were Roman laws which covered marriage. A woman was
not considered an adult in terms of the law. She was under the control of her
father until such a time as she married. At that point her custody and control
was transferred to her husband and she was under his exclusive control as well
as that of the pater familias of the family she has married into. The modern
custom of the father escorting the bride down the aisle and handing her off to
her husband to be comes from this legal point.

Romans had three forms of marriage [in manum]; confarreatio which was a
religious ceremony conducted in front of flamen dialis and pontifex maximus and
ten witnesses. Only the children of someone married in this fashion was
eligible for the ceremony. This was the common form of marriage among the
aristocratic set. It transferred all rights of property owned by the woman to
her husband and allied the two families. The ceremony required the couple to
join hands and affirm their verbal consent to the marriage followed by sharing a
specially prepared bread. The consent of her father was also required.

A second form of marriage was coemptio which had no religious ceremony. The
woman and her dowry were escorted to her husband's home typically with musicians
and a feast. There had to be at least 5 witnesses. The witnesses carried the
woman across the threshold of the house. The ceremony required that the couple
join hands and verbally affirm their consent to the marriage. The consent of the
woman's father was also required.

The final form of marriage was called usus, which simply required that the woman
live for a year with her husband. She could not spend more than three nights
away from the house during the first year. This form of marriage conferred the
greatest amount of freedom on a woman as she was no longer under the "manum" of
her father nor was she under the "manum" of her husband. She continued to own
her own property although she had to have an adult male relative represent her
interests in the courts. Needless to say this was the most common form of
marriage for the masses who could not afford the feast and musicians and general
celebratory forms of the above two.

A final form of marriage was allowed in Rome but was reserved for the marriage
of slaves or freedman with slave.

Initially after the fall of Rome, two forms of marriage were allowed in most of
Europe. One was permanent [muntehe], conferring property rights while the
second [friedtehe] was considered temporary with no transfer of property from
one family to the other. The children of either form of marriage were
considered legitimate. Charlemagne for example, married off his daughters in
the second form to avoid any ambiguities in the control of his empire. Both
forms required the assent of the parents of the bride and the verbal assent of
the bride and groom given in public. They also required that the parties'
cohabitation as well as sexual consummation of the marriage. Failing either,
the marriage was not valid. No religious ceremony was required. Our
Anglo-Saxon counterparts developed a form of bride purchase which required the
man to pay a sum of money for the right to marry the woman. However the form
essentially followed the muntehe form of marriage described above.

By the 13th century the Roman Catholic Church was strongly arguing against any
form of marriage which was not permanent. However, under early canon law a
marriage was valid if the parties were of the same social class and not slaves;
they must give their consent to the marriage freely and in public; the woman
must be given by her father and properly dowered; the ceremony must be in
public; and finally, the union must be sexually consummated. Prior to 1215 the
Church did not require a religious ceremony requiring a priest. Even after 1215
the Church continued to recognize legal marriages where no priest was present.
However by the 16th century [1563] the church insisted on the presence of a
priest.

Martin Luther declared marriage was a matter for the civil authorities to
regulate and the church should not be involved. He did however say that it was
appropriate for clergy to bless such unions but the creation of the unions
should be a civil matter.

The common form of religious celebration of a marriage continued to develop but
the current form we use today did not take final form until the Victorian Age.
[As late as 1940, it was legal in Scotland for two people to simply declare tho
each other that they were married.] Even in Victorian times it was very much a
property transfer from the bride's father and a transfer of chattel, namely a
wife who had no legal status as an adult. It provided for the legitimation of
the offspring and the secure inheritance of property via recognized legitimate
offspring.

Now in the 21st century we have encountered the next issues in marriage. Same
sex couples can have offspring as well as assorted property issues that need to
be standardized. It is no longer true that traditional marriage exists to
legitimize property transfers and ensure progeny legally recognized as
legitimate. Indeed, the entire civil institution is in a state of flux and has
been for the past 40 years. Women are legally considered adults and capable of
owning property and conducting their own affairs. A parent is no longer legally
responsible for a child after the child reaches the age of majority. We no
longer require dowries or pride prices. Most states have done away with the
concept of illegitimacy requiring a father to recognize and accept legal
responsibility for all his progeny and allowing all his progeny a right to
inherit.

Same sex marriage seems to be the final frontier on this issue. Resistance from
traditionalists is strong but slowly abating. But anyone who claims that our
present forms of marriage are time honored since the time of Jesus is either
ignorant or outright lying.

- John Petry

[T-Dawg]

Thanks, nice information. Just comes to show how bad marriage is now compared to back in the good ol' days.

Martin Luther declared marriage was a matter for the civil authorities to
regulate and the church should not be involved. He did however say that it was
appropriate for clergy to bless such unions but the creation of the unions
should be a civil matter.

And I thought Luther was a good Christian (besides his ideas being the cause of a lot of wars). Gah, why would ANYONE think that marriage is a civil matter? Marriage is (or should be) completely religious, with no "legal" authorities involved.

[Engyo]

Well, if you look at the evolution of marriage as charted in the article, the it would seem to be far more of a civil matter than a religious one. For that matter, Buddhism generally considers marriage outside of its scope as well.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by TheAmazingLoser

Marriage is (or should be) completely religious, with no "legal" authorities involved.

Among other things, how could your children inherit from you if the state had no role in marriage. It's religion that's superfluous -- not the state.

[Engyo]

I feel that it would probably benefit society in the long run to separate the civil/social contract aspects of marriage (inheritance and all the rest) from the religious aspects. Have the state regulate the civil/social aspects as a purely administrative/legal function, and then anyone can acknowledge their marriage in whatever religious fashion they so choose or don't as they like.

[stephenw]

Originally Posted by Engyo

I feel that it would probably benefit society in the long run to separate the civil/social contract aspects of marriage (inheritance and all the rest) from the religious aspects.

Isn't that what you do if you have your wedding in a registry office?

[Engyo]

Originally Posted by stephenw

Isn't that what you do if you have your wedding in a registry office?

In a sense, yes. But we still have laws on the books which define marriage according to religious parameters, and I feel it would beneift society to remove these restrictions.

[stephenw]

Originally Posted by Engyo

In a sense, yes. But we still have laws on the books which define marriage according to religious parameters, and I feel it would beneift society to remove these restrictions.

I agree that marriage and religion should be seperate but I'm not sure what type of restrictions you are talking about.
Same sex marriage is the only one I can think of? I think same sex marriage should be legal for many reasons including inheritance rights, custody rights etc. etc. but I have to say I don't think it's religion that's holding it back I think it's more general conservatism.

[Duck]

Originally Posted by TheAmazingLoser

Thanks, nice information. Just comes to show how bad marriage is now compared to back in the good ol' days.

And I thought Luther was a good Christian (besides his ideas being the cause of a lot of wars). Gah, why would ANYONE think that marriage is a civil matter? Marriage is (or should be) completely religious, with no "legal" authorities involved.

So, could you point out the parts of your religious text that deal with, say, hospital visitation rights? For that matter could you point out the parts of your religious text that deal with hospitals? I will wait for chapter and verse, thanks...

Until such a time, isn't there a verse somewhere in your religious text about what should be associated with religion and what should be associated with the secular government? Something about Caesar and what is his?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Engyo

Our modern civil marriage customs arise from the Roman civil law with ...

While the ability to Cut-n-Paste is no doubt laudable, why would one title a thread the "history of traditional marriage" and serve up a blog on "modern civil marriage"?