The definition of marriage thing

[klwilliams]

I keep hearing from people against gay marriage that "the Bible says" that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman, yet I have yet to see that definition in any Bible. However, I've been reading a book about England in the twelfth century. During that time, the definition of marriage became codified. Secular law decided that canon law would decide, and canon law decided that the primary definition was that two people agree and say publicly that they were married. And at this time canon law defined marriage as an agreement between two people (which at the time would be one man and one woman). Aha! I bet that's where all this is coming from.

Comments

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

*nodding*

[ppfuf.livejournal.com]

I generally assume people who say that are unfamiliar with the bible, and are just going t from the adam-and-eve storey to get the 1 man, 1 woman definition. They annoy me almost as much as the people who claim the bible says marriage is about procreation, not companionship. I *do* wish people would read the bible, rather than believing what other people say about it.

[kahnegabs.livejournal.com]

My understanding is that marriage originated as a financial agreement between two families even in biblical times. It had nothing to do with love, or any of that other stuff. It doesn't seem much related to what we do today. I think it was simply a way to control property and inheritance. If that is the case, why should it be under control of churches, or the state, unless we have given either of them the right to decide who gets our property?

[j-i-m-r.livejournal.com]

For most of human history, marriage has been a property exchange between men. Women were, and in some places still are, property.

[kahnegabs.livejournal.com]

Yes, property that needed controlling at that.
I watched Ann of a Thousand Days last night, and it left me thinking about how little she would have had to say about it. If the King wanted her, he could have her. And yet she changed the world by trying to live by her wits.

[sfmarty.livejournal.com]

Yes! Are you reading the Ken Follett book? I just finished it and after some 973 pages I am waiting a bit befoe the 1143 (or so) page sequel.

[klwilliams.livejournal.com]

No, I'm reading England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings by Bartlett, part of the New Oxford History series. It's very, very good.

[j-i-m-r.livejournal.com]

If you've more interest in this subject, I recommend George Duby's "The Knight, The Lady and The Priest".

[klwilliams.livejournal.com]

Thanks. What I'm researching is England in general under Henry II and Richard I.

[aberwyn.livejournal.com]

In the Old Testament marriage is always between one man and a whole bunch of women, depending on how many he could afford to buy from their fathers.

This is not a definition I think we should go back to.

[gormflaith.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's a definition that anyone in modern western culture could afford anymore, either financially or socially.

[kateelliott.livejournal.com]

Not always, only sometimes! *g*

[kateelliott.livejournal.com]

Which would therefore, I meant to add, suggest that sometimes men should be allowed multiple wives if you wanted to be all biblical about it, but otherwise concubines would be allowed, and occasionally a man would just have one wife (that we knew of). See: lots of variety! Funny how the bible literalists keep leaving this stuff out in their one man/one woman line. I mean, either we're being biblical, or we aren't.

[gormflaith.livejournal.com]

Well, and that is part of the problem, these groups that are all up in arms about various causes pick and choose what supports their cause and dismiss the rest as bad or mistaken translation.
If everyone could just take care of their own, and not be so worried about how others are taking care of their own... As long as everyone is getting taken care of it just shouldn't matter.

[kateelliott.livejournal.com]

Hear hear.

[ermine-rat.livejournal.com]

Love doesn't show up in the law books.
Marriage is about property and heirs... legally.

[acanthusleaf.livejournal.com]

They keep quoting something from Leviticus. Wherein I have also heard that it is said that you are not to eat shellfish and you are allowed to keep slaves. I do not have a bible here to look it up, or I would have wasted a lot of time before now formulating counter-arguments.

Wasn't the whole idea of Christianity to not have to obey the Old Testament any more?

[klwilliams.livejournal.com]

That's another rant, against people who insist on putting up placards of the Ten Commandments. Jesus gave two commandments, on which hang all the law and the prophets: Love God, and love thy neighbor as thyself. Period.

[ppfuf.livejournal.com]

Jesus did say that not a jot or a tittle of the law would pass away....so I'm probably doomed for eating bacon and wearing mixed fiber sweaters.
I'm not sure what part of Leviticus they might be quoting, it's a big book, but most of the laws in it about marriage and controlling sexuality are about property and inheritance.
If you have an urge to waste time trying to look for it, there's always http://www.biblegateway.com/

[xrian.livejournal.com]

I agree with ppfuf that the problem is that people are either (1) reading things into the Biblical text that aren't actually there, or (2) believing what some pastor *tells* them the Bible says rather than what it actually *does* say. I'm always amazed at the things people read into their "favorite" verses (on this and other issues).

My impression, though, is that at least the more well-educated among those who are against same-sex marriage don't actually think that "man + woman" is literally commanded by particular words in the text: rather, they are relying on the fact (and I think it is a fact) that 100% of the marriages described in the Bible are of the man + woman type and not man + man or woman + woman.

Whether this *should* be the one and only "norm" for all people in all times and places, of course, is far more debateable.

It's interesting that abortion and homosexuality have so quickly become THE issues for so many of the "loud Christians" (those who get the most media attention). This is actually a very recent phenomenon. As recently as the 1960s and 1970s, divorce was the issue that generated an equivalent amount of heat. Seen any big anti-divorce rallies lately? ;)

[ppfuf.livejournal.com]

Good point about the changes in divorce law, I've been rereading Wharton's _House of Mirth_ and it's quite catty about divorced women who remained in polite society.

[xrian.livejournal.com]

Yes, one of my Dad's aunts was a divorcée, as I recall, and it was a big BIG scandal -- about comparable to being declared mentally ill or having a child out of wedlock ;(

Found it!

[ppfuf.livejournal.com]

To be a deacon or overseerer in the church you "must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,..." 1 Timothy 3:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Tim 3:2-4; Titus 1:6-8&version=49)
This could be where the one husband+one wife thing comes from. Near-total misreading of the intended text, but since when does that stop anybody?

Re: Found it!

[klwilliams.livejournal.com]

This could be, but it's differentiating between the deacon/overseer and the standard man, who is the husband of more than one wife, i.e. the norm of the time.

Re: Found it!

[aberwyn.livejournal.com]

If i remember rightly, Leviticus was originally only supposed to apply to the priestly caste in ancient Israel/Judea, too.

[scotica.livejournal.com]

canon law decided that the primary definition was that two people agree and say publicly that they were married.

To be really technical, it was at this time that canon law decided that what "made" marriage was present tense consent of the two parties (as opposed to sexual consummation, or parental agreement, or anything other than actual consent by both parties). You didn't even need any public declaration to be legally married -- a couple could exchange present tense consents ("I take you for my husband", "I take you for my wife") in the woods with only squirrels for witnesses and it was a legal, binding marriage.

This was fairly radical and born from pure idealism. It meant that people (women and men) could not be legally married against their will (at least not if they were willing to stick to their guns about refusing). Of course, it also had a lot of unintended consequences. For example, if witnesses aren't necessary, then it becomes all too easy for the unscrupulous to marry someone and then later deny that they had married (and "marry" someone else).

In any case, throughout history --especially Western, Christian history-- legal marriage has been primarily about property and other rights and responsibilities. Children only really came into it in the sense that marriage determined which children were legitimate (and so could inherit property) and which were illegitimate (and so could not, at least in most Christian countries). To the best of my knowledge, the idea that the _purpose_ of legal marriage was creating the best environment for the raising of children, etc., is fairly modern. Especially in societies that treated legitimate and illegitimate children differently before the law, the welfare of children was pretty obviously not of much concern. (And it is only in the last century or less that legitimacy has ceased to be of much significance with regard to inheritance.)

Most of the arguments made against Gay marriage rely on ignorance, whether of the Bible, or history, or both. But I take comfort from the observation that much of the sound and fury stems from desperation: they, too, can see the writing on the wall, and know that, just as with divorce in the 60s and 70s, they've already lost the war with regard to Gay marriage. It is only a matter of time, now.