The peculiar evolution of marriage

bobcat

Well-known Member
Location
Northern Calif
It has been a cultural cornerstone of society dating back thousands of years. In the distant past, it was often a more transactional institution for consolidation of power and resources. Many were arranged, and some still are. As the idea of personal freedom began to take hold, the idea to marry for love became the more prominent practice.

In early societies, tribal leaders and elders performed them. Slowly priests and religious figures assumed this role signifying that it was ordained by God, and therefore somehow blessed, even though different religions may have different Gods. In the secular way of life, it was more of a civil contract performed by city officials.

Traditions vary widely from jumping over a broom to spreading a garment over the bride, and many others. In some cultures, no officiant was even required. If the couple began living together with the father's consent, they just had a ritual, and were considered husband and wife. In other societies, a man and woman needed a chaperone on dates to make sure no hanky-panky happened. Also a priest couldn't un-marry you, as it required some sort of dissolution contract. Some religious institutions even regarded marriage as a sacred contract that couldn't be broken by civil laws.

Then there is annulment. In times past, if there was misrepresentation, the marriage could be annulled for a variety of reasons. If the marriage isn't consummated (No sex), in some cases, it can be annulled by some churches, and even in some courts if consummation is refused or unable to be performed by only one of the participants. If a wife discovers her husband is impotent, she could get an annulment, but if she continues to live with him after discovering it, then it's off the table.

Who is allowed to officiate a wedding can vary widely from state to state, and could be a fake Elvis, or your cousin, as long as they get some document from an organization that may not even have any religious affiliation. In addition, even if your marriage was legally valid where it was performed, it must be recognized as valid in a state with more stringent requirements. A couple of states even have Common Law Marriages.

I don't know how other countries perform marriages, or all the complexities surrounding them, but there does seem to be declining rates due to financial and emotional reasons in divorce. There is more Living Apart Together, Cohabitating, Committed Relationships, and private ceremonies. The union idea isn't disappearing—it’s being redefined. People still crave connection, but they’re choosing formats that better suit their values, lifestyles, and emotional needs, although the most churches probably don't approve.
 

In medieval Germany for consummation of a marriage man and woman were put together in public under a blanket.

Until today we have the very popular proverb "unter einer Decke stecken" (literally: being together under a blanket), but for a long time it is used in a pejorative sense and means the same as in English "to be in cahoots".
 
IMO the need for marriage had more to do with legal and financial responsibility over women and children along with a concern for public health.

Today women have more financial options available to them and modern medicine is better equipped to deal with the realities of birth control, communicable diseases, etc…

I’m not convinced that humans were ever meant to be in monogamous relationships for life and that notion has created more misery than joy.

IMO it’s better to choose to be with someone each day than to be legally bound to them for life.

1758448264432.jpeg
 

In medieval Germany for consummation of a marriage man and woman were put together in public under a blanket.

Until today we have the very popular proverb "unter einer Decke stecken" (literally: being together under a blanket), but for a long time it is used in a pejorative sense and means the same as in English "to be in cahoots".
Yes, from what I read, different cultures marked the union by rituals, and then it was just a social memory of the community that was used as a collective record.

However, it is interesting that the act of being together under a blanket conveyed anything since I'm pretty sure that happened occasionally outside of the intent to be a couple. Maybe the public witnessing it was the binding element (Awkward).

It seems I remember a scene from the TV series "The Great", where Catherine and Peter had to be witnessed by the court crowd doing it under a blanket. It was a different world then.
 
I used to think you weren't legally married until the exact moment a minister, priest, or some divine proxy said you were. But the idea of marriage, be it under the blanket or by any other method makes sense to me. I'm happy that people can choose that life, but if they don't that's OK too.
 
IMO the need for marriage had more to do with legal and financial responsibility over women and children along with a concern for public health.

Today women have more financial options available to them and modern medicine is better equipped to deal with the realities of birth control, communicable diseases, etc…

I’m not convinced that humans were ever meant to be in monogamous relationships for life and that notion has created more misery than joy.

IMO it’s better to choose to be with someone each day than to be legally bound to them for life.

View attachment 452118
Yes, I think the concept of marriage goes back way before writing and literacy. I can't imagine a clay tablet marriage license done by scribes, especially when you couldn't even read what it said.

As for humans being meant for monogamy, I guess my thinking would be that most things evolve out of necessity, so if that's true, then it would be for some means of security like most other contracts that society has come up with.
 
At its most fundamental, base level, as the species evolved, the driving imperative is towards life and the perpetuation of said species. Factor in a high mortality rate because of multiple environmental or disease threats, so males are equipped to father countless offspring many times a day in their prime, whereas females are only fertile on average 3 -4 days of the month, and within a limited window of years during the lifetime of the female, as well as the extended gestational period in which any other conception is impossible, plus a suckling period after the offspring is born

It was only after society became more “civilized” that unions between man and woman needed to be recognized as official. It’s my opinion that making a union official in whatever manner a society chooses to, other than what’s been previously mentioned, is to ensure that the mother plus child/children will be adequately provided for (food, shelter, protection etc) until the offspring is able to provide for themselves.

Those unions became more stylized over time, religion entered the picture with strictures against multiple partners, sex outside of marriage etc, plus random other rules and laws about how those unions should conduct themselves.

It’s funny really, because the original design of both genders and their roles within the species provides for the highest possible chance of species perpetuation. The design was a purely practical consideration given the many factors that were a thread to both individual and species survival.

It’s an ingenious design because look! It worked! We’re all here because of it. 🎉
 
This is a heavy subject for this early in the day. I wanted to be married, and would do it again. Church had nothing to do with it. I wasn't in church at that time.

Edited:
Above says I would do it again. That is not to say I want to be married again. I don't. I meant if I could go back to the same place and time I was in when I got married, I would do it again.
 
At its most fundamental, base level, as the species evolved, the driving imperative is towards life and the perpetuation of said species. Factor in a high mortality rate because of multiple environmental or disease threats, so males are equipped to father countless offspring many times a day in their prime, whereas females are only fertile on average 3 -4 days of the month, and within a limited window of years during the lifetime of the female, as well as the extended gestational period in which any other conception is impossible, plus a suckling period after the offspring is born

It was only after society became more “civilized” that unions between man and woman needed to be recognized as official. It’s my opinion that making a union official in whatever manner a society chooses to, other than what’s been previously mentioned, is to ensure that the mother plus child/children will be adequately provided for (food, shelter, protection etc) until the offspring is able to provide for themselves.

Those unions became more stylized over time, religion entered the picture with strictures against multiple partners, sex outside of marriage etc, plus random other rules and laws about how those unions should conduct themselves.

It’s funny really, because the original design of both genders and their roles within the species provides for the highest possible chance of species perpetuation. The design was a purely practical consideration given the many factors that were a thread to both individual and species survival.

It’s an ingenious design because look! It worked! We’re all here because of it. 🎉
You're right. In nature there are numerous instances where there is but one male, and multiple females. Even in some cultures Polygamy and Polyandry are still practiced, but I couldn't speculate as to the reasons.

It seems to me, if an arrangement works out well for all involved, and everyone consents to it, and are of legal age, then perhaps the law shouldn't prevent it. I guess I don't understand the legal reason behind the law in that case.

I think originally the marriage contract insured a certain amount of assurance against infidelity, but as we all know, it happens quite often, and now that No-fault divorce seems to be the more accepted instance, that assurance seems to have evaporated. I'm not even sure if the "Till death do us part" is still used in vows because so many things can change that promise.
 
This is a heavy subject for this early in the day. I wanted to be married, and would do it again.
Setting aside the history and evolution of marriage it's the committment that many find difficult. Nowadays the UK figure for marriage is currently 49%, fifty years ago it was in excess of 80%. I will leave those statistics for others to discuss.

In about thirty months from now, providing that The Grim Reaper doesn't have either of my wife's name or mine in his diary, we will have been married for sixty years. Hand on heart, not for once have I either of us ever regretted it. When two people have the good fortune to be soulmates, it really is a blessing for both of them.

Tell you what, in 2068 we will be the first couple ever to be married for 100 years. You are all invited to the party!
 
In the early 1960's Latin culture my wife being Puerto Rican this was how it was for us.

In other societies, a man and woman needed a chaperone on dates to make sure no hanky-panky happened.

Not so much for my sons here in the states. They divorced & remarried.
 
The marital statistics seem to support that notion, with 50% ending in divorce, a good 25% or more being unhappy, and a minority of marriages being happy, or at least at a stalemate.
I would imagine that the positive stats are higher for LAT relationships, and cohabitating relationships, because it's more voluntary and sidesteps most legalities.
 
The marital statistics seem to support that notion, with 50% ending in divorce, a good 25% or more being unhappy, and a minority of marriages being happy, or at least at a stalemate.
I disagree with Auntie Bea in that quote, and disagree with the above sentence. Half of marriages do not end in divorce. Statistics cover those married multiple times, like you (((Nathan))), so are misleading.

I find Americans to be unhappy, generally, period. I think I know why, but will keep it to myself.
 
I disagree with Auntie Bea in that quote, and disagree with the above sentence. Half of marriages do not end in divorce. Statistics cover those married multiple times, like you (((Nathan))), so are misleading.
@Pepper, well thanks for the personal insult, having a bad day? Apparently the 50% divorce rate is outdated, is now around 40%. Maybe you could have found a way to point that out, rather than calling me a liar.
 
Polygamy served a purpose when there were considerably more women than men. Unmarried women were without "protection", so they joined an established "family" and got their protection there. It made sense back "then"; I can't see the purpose now.

We had a sort of "houseboy" in Turkey who serviced the whole apartment building. Halil took out trash, got bottles of gas for the stove, swept the halls and stairs, ran errands, met the busses to carry packages for us, etc. He had saved for years to get a "traditional" wife (illegal, but still practiced) from a village in the mountains. He had finally saved enough money and the bride he had been paying for for years ran away right before the wedding. The father didn't want to give the money back so he offered Halil a younger sister who wasn't quite old enough yet to marry. So poor Halil kept paying and finally, the girl was 16 and could marry. The wedding went on for three days.

The Catholic church required the "banns" to be announced for three Sundays before a wedding. This allowed time for someone to step up and give a reason why the marriage would be invalid.

I have a copy of the "marriage bond" for an ancestor, signed by Patrick Henry when he was Governor of Virginia. A "bond marriage" meant that a monetary bond (in this case, $50) was lodged with the authorities to protect a wife and family if it turned out that the man was already married (which was pretty common up in the mountains....it wasn't unusual for a man to have a family on one side of the mountain and another on the other side). If another woman showed up with three children in tow and said, "He married me five years ago!", the "injured" second wife got the money. Otherwise, the bond dissolved in a certain amount of time and the payee got his money back.

These days, a lawyer gets your money if that happens....LOL
 
@Pepper, well thanks for the personal insult, having a bad day? Apparently the 50% divorce rate is outdated, is now around 40%. Maybe you could have found a way to point that out, rather than calling me a liar.
Wow, was I misunderstood! Just teasing you cause I love you. Since I fell on my face, I beg your apology ❤️

PS
Most of my days are bad and pain filled.
 
Wow, was I misunderstood! Just teasing you cause I love you. Since I fell on my face, I beg your apology ❤️

PS
Most of my days are bad and pain filled.
No need for you to apologize, I am sorry for misinterpreting your comment. I must be off today and not realizing it, maybe I should go get some fresh air and start the day over. chair.gif

Most of my days are bad and pain filled.
😢🤗❤️
 
Last edited:
Then there is annulment. In times past, if there was misrepresentation, the marriage could be annulled for a variety of reasons. If the marriage isn't consummated (No sex), in some cases, it can be annulled by some churches, and even in some courts if consummation is refused or unable to be performed by only one of the participants. If a wife discovers her husband is impotent, she could get an annulment, but if she continues to live with him after discovering it, then it's off the table.
In the Catholic Church a marriage is not "annulled." Nobody can annul a marriage (according to Church teachings). The proper term in the Church is "Declaration of Nullity," which states the marriage was never valid to begin with because one or both of the parties was incapable of giving consent.

I had a Catholic wedding and went through the formal process of having the marriage declared null. I speak only with respect to the Roman Catholic Church's terminology. I don't know how other denominations address this. I'd actually be curious to know how they do.
 
Last edited:
I am not suited for marriage myself and I don't like just living with someone so it's all off the table for me.

The evolution of marriage made one more turn in the road with same sex marraiges as well. In my youth I never would've seen that coming.
 
In the Catholic Church a marriage is not "annulled." Nobody can annul a marriage (according to Church teachings). The proper term in the Church is "Declaration of Nullity," which states the marriage was never valid to begin with because one or both of the parties was incapable of giving consent.

I had a Catholic wedding and went through the formal process of having the marriage declared null. I speak only with respect to the Roman Catholic Church's terminology. I don't know how other denominations address this. I'd actually be curious to know how they do.
I'm not crystal clear on the distinction, but I will take a guess. In the view of the Catholic church, even if civil law annuls a marriage, the church still reserves the right to make it's own decision regarding the matter, and it can issue a "Declaration of Nullity" (Meaning it was never valid). It seems like it could get a bit sticky though if the church issues a "Declaration of Nullity", but civil law does not, and the church says you're free to marry another, but civil law disagrees.

Perhaps I'm not understanding it correctly, and if so, please clarify.
 

Back
Top