Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Chat Forums » Political Opinions and Opinionated Posts




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:42 pm 
Gatekeeper of Niftiness
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:54 am
Posts: 5103
Location: Australia
inspiration wrote:
Silly Green Monkey wrote:
Removing the sex discriminations is a very different animal from rewriting all of the inheritance and relationship laws.

What are the laws that would have to change (fundamentally; e.g. it's not that different to say "your spouse can't be made to testify against you in court" versus "your spouses can't be made to testify against you in court")? That sounds like a challenge the way I worded it, but I'm really just asking. It's not something I've informed myself on to any useful degree.

I think SGM meant rewriting the laws to be seperate from the bonds of marriage.

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:08 pm 
Senior Community Staff
Senior Community Staff
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 2667
Location: super-entropy
Ahh, I read it differently. Sorry. Carry on!

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:55 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 2341
Location: Smack bang in the middle of Europe
waffle wrote:
With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.[53][54] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.


I suspect this Wiki is being very selective in trying to make its point. This is Canon 51 from the 4th Lateran Council in 1215. I don't know how widely this is followed, but it's clearly stating that the practice of getting married without having a priest involved should not be allowed anywhere, as it already wasn't in some places. Given that Roman Catholic law was, in theory, followed everywhere in Europe west of the Balkans except Ireland and parts of Spain, I suspect there are more than a 'few local exceptions'

Quote:
Text. Since the prohibition of the conjugal union in the three last degrees has been revoked, we wish that it be strictly observed in the other degrees. Whence, following in the footsteps of our predecessors, we absolutely forbid clandestine marriages; and we forbid also that a priest presume to witness such. Wherefore, extending to other localities generally the particular custom that prevails in some, we decree that when marriages are to be contracted they must be announced publicly in the churches by the priests during a suitable and fixed time, so that if legitimate impediments exist, they may be made known. Let the priests nevertheless investigate whether any impediments exist. But when there is ground for doubt concerning the contemplated union, let the marriage be expressly forbidden until it is evident from reliable sources what ought to be done in regard to it. But if anyone should presume to contract a clandestine or forbidden marriage of this kind within a prohibited degree, even through ignorance, the children from such a union shall be considered illegitimate, nor shall the ignorance of the parents be pleaded as an extenuating circumstance in their behalf, since they by contracting such marriages appear not as wanting in knowledge but rather as affecting ignorance. In like manner the children shall be considered illegitimate if both parents, knowing that a legitimate impediment exists, presume to contract such a marriage in conspectu ecclesiae (not clandestinely) in disregard of every prohibition. The parochial priest who deliberately neglects to forbid such unions, or any regular priest who presumes to witness them, let them be suspended from office for a period of three years and, if the nature of their offense demands it, let them be punished more severely. On those also who presume to contract such marriages in a lawful degree, a condign punishment is to be imposed. If anyone maliciously presents an impediment for the purpose of frustrating a legitimate marriage, let him not escape ecclesiastical punishment.

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:00 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 2163
Location: Vienna, Austria, EU
inspiration wrote:
Silly Green Monkey wrote:
Removing the sex discriminations is a very different animal from rewriting all of the inheritance and relationship laws.

What are the laws that would have to change (fundamentally; e.g. it's not that different to say "your spouse can't be made to testify against you in court" versus "your spouses can't be made to testify against you in court")? That sounds like a challenge the way I worded it, but I'm really just asking. It's not something I've informed myself on to any useful degree.


There are a couple of points, that are solvable, but don't have a single obvious solution.

In every case that now needs the agreement of both marriage partners, does it now need a majority, or has everyone a veto?
What happens if a majority, but not all marriage partners want to add someone to the marriage?
How to do a divorce in various scenarios?
Should biological parenthood give some benefits in claims for child custody or not?

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:10 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 5215
Location: Awaiting the Waffle Signal
caffeine wrote:
I suspect this Wiki is being very selective in trying to make its point. This is Canon 51 from the 4th Lateran Council in 1215. I don't know how widely this is followed, but it's clearly stating that the practice of getting married without having a priest involved should not be allowed anywhere, as it already wasn't in some places. Given that Roman Catholic law was, in theory, followed everywhere in Europe west of the Balkans except Ireland and parts of Spain, I suspect there are more than a 'few local exceptions'


I really recommend anyone interested read "Marriage: A History" as cited above. The book, written by a historian studying the matter, goes into depth with citations. Marriage, up until the thirteenth century, was not a religious matter. And even after that, marriage was not a religious matter for anyone without a title and land.

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:50 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 2341
Location: Smack bang in the middle of Europe
waffle wrote:
I really recommend anyone interested read "Marriage: A History" as cited above. The book, written by a historian studying the matter, goes into depth with citations. Marriage, up until the thirteenth century, was not a religious matter. And even after that, marriage was not a religious matter for anyone without a title and land.


I'll readily believe the 13th century - that would explain why the Church felt it necessary to forcefully impose itself on marriage at the 4th Lateran Council. I was objecting to the claim you quoted from wiki that there was little or no Church involvement before the 16th century.

Top 
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 

Board index » Chat Forums » Political Opinions and Opinionated Posts


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: