This NY Times editorial asks a question i’ve been asking for a while: why is the state involved with marriage in the first place?
Why do people â€” gay or straight â€” need the stateâ€™s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didnâ€™t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parentsâ€™ 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 coupleâ€™s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows â€” even out alone by the haystack â€” the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
In 1215, the church decreed that a â€œlicitâ€ marriage must take place in church. But people who married illictly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.
Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match.
Keep marriages private and allow any two people to make a legally binding civil union for tax and property purposes.
This entry was posted on Monday, November 26th, 2007 and is filed under Religion, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.