This took me hours today to research and write. I apologize for the slightly disjointed feel of it all, but I don’t feel up to taking more time on it at this point since I’ve neglected food and homework, haha.
Marriages in Rome and Greece were informalities for the most part. There was an agreement between families, a man (usually in his 30’s) would be wed to a woman (usually a teenager), and then the new wife would move into the new husbands household. She, and the children she bore, would become property of the husband. The marriage was not out of love, nor out of religiosity. It was done to create heirs, to expand one’s estate, and to perhaps marry into particular familial, political, or social situations. Even while married to a woman who mothers multiple children, it was not uncommon for men to have concubines and engage in pederasty.
Over time, women were granted better legal rights in Rome, which allowed for contracts to be entered more mutually. But this led to an apparent decrease in marriages taking place because Augustus decreed that penalties were to be imposed for remaining single (no property rights).
As Christianity became an increasingly influential power in the Roman Empire, the influence on marriage and divorce was minimal. Christian Emperors left the institution of marriage as a private and civil affair, but repealed the laws that did not allow the elevation of celibacy and virginity. Other than these minor alterations, the institution was not really under the purview of religious authorities. That did not take place until later. The Christian Church made consent between spouses critically important (Pope Nicholas I said “If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void”). This influenced European tribal groups to elevate the status of women, as well as theologians beginning to truly view marriage as something more than merely contractual. Theologians began to find increasing religious significance in marriage as it became a (relatively) more equal institution. In the 12th century, about the time that troubadours were lyrically singing about courtly love, infusing the ideal of love into the entire arrangement, the Church made marriage into one of its sacraments.
The Church in its desire to exert its influence over this newly religious important institution managed to create some problems. By outlawing divorce completely and by impeding who could marry whom, marriage began to need regulation. The Church, in effect, grabbed for control over entering into and getting out of a marriage. This begins the marked increase in Church control and influence on the institution as a whole. Despite these changes, both in the regulations and the religious significance, marriage remained an oft used means of social, political, and economic maneuverings of families (especially the aristocratic, who were often the ones writing the theologies, the doctrines, the laws, and the histories).
With the Reformation, the sacrament of marriage was denounced and returned to the realm of the secular. The Reformers saw the Catholic Church as abusing its power by having created a sacrament that was greatly lacking in Scriptural guidance. Thus, it became more a matter of the “state” (such as it was at that time) in European countries that embraced the Reformation (Switzerland, Germany, etc.). This is, in part, because many of the leaders of the Reformation had violated the sacrament of marriage while being clergymen. Thus, removing the Church’s influence and authority on marriage would allow clergy to partake of the institution without remorse or repercussion.
At the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the Catholic Church answered the Protestant Reformation and decreed marriage cannot be granted if provisions in Leviticus are contravened. This is summed up in two particular impediments to marriage: consanguinity and affinity. Consanguinity refers to being too closely related by blood. Affinity means someone too closely related (not necessarily biologically) to a previous spouse. These are the restrictions that are laid down. Presumably nothing is mentioned regarding same-sex marriage because either a) it was not common enough to warrant the Church’s concern, b) the Council of Trent was more concerned with refuting Protestants and gay marriage was not a part of the debate, or c) it is understood that since Leviticus prohibits a man lying with a man as he would with a woman, and that marriage requires consummation (i.e. sex), that Leviticus indirectly precludes same-sex marriage and therefore is not necessary to discuss. It is most likely, however, that it was a non-issue at the time since the concepts of sexuality are vastly different today than back then. One was homosexual due to one’s actions, not because of one’s identity. Since no one identified themselves as gay or lesbian, there was no need to lay down an institutional injunction regarding people of the same sex marrying. The concern may be over married persons performing homosexual acts, but that is not a concern with the actual sacrament of matrimony apparently.
In this same document defending matrimony as a sacrament, virginity and celibacy are reaffirmed as higher states of being than marriage. Thus, the ideal of the Christian life is, in fact, to remain celibate for life in order to more fully devote one’s self to service of God. American obsession with marriage and the nuclear family is a recent development in history.
The Twenty Fourth Session of the Council of Trent also decreed that anyone preventing the Church from impeding divorce, or even merely saying that the Church cannot prevent divorce, is anathema. The Reformers rejected this and sought to allow divorces in special cases. For the Catholic Church, annulments were the only means of backing out of a marriage. Because of the large number of impediments to marriage laid down by church law (Martin Luther sums up 14 of the major ones in his “The Estate of Marriage”), it was not difficult for couples to “discover” an impediment they overlooked, which would allow them to annul the marriage.
This Council document also prohibits polygamy. It is “against divine law” despite it being present within the narratives of the Hebrew Scriptures without any moral indignation or condemnation.
Common Law Marriages persisted in England because of Henry VIII’s break from Rome. These were carry over from the formerly commonplace Roman marriage by usus (no ceremony at all). They remained legal until 1753 when the Church of England was put in charge of all marriages (except for Jews and Quakers). This would not affect English Colonies, thus Common Law Marriages were still possible in America.
Marriage in the States underwent major development since the country was founded. Early Puritan clergy in America refused to perform marriages, deeming it a purely civil issue. The changes have generally moved towards a more egalitarian, conventional understanding of marriage: from granting rights to women to outlawing bigamy. In the context of the current debate around same-sex marriage, a major development that took place in the 20th century was the outlawing of anti-miscegenation laws. It is not until 1967, barely 40 years ago, that the Supreme Court made the final ruling that struck down any laws preventing people of different races marrying. The arguments for anti-miscegenation laws included warnings that the institution of marriage would dissolve, that people would then want to marry animals, and, that the white race would eventually disappear. Biblical verses were cited as evidence. The Supreme Court’s ruling included the following:
“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
Jumping forward to today, marriage has become a very convoluted issue. Scandinavian countries are commonly pointed to because of how many children are born without married parents. This is not to be confused with the pejorative “born out of wedlock” idea. Instead, many couples simply do not bother with the formality of marriage and instead draw up co-habitation agreements, in some cases with multiple people (as is legal in the Netherlands). These facts are pointed to as evidence of the demise of marriage, with gay marriage beginning to first step down that path. However, considering the history I’ve traced, it would seem that marriage simply cannot be propped up as the be-all, end-all relationship. History tells a very different story. For Christians, marriage develops into the ultimate relationship for two people to enter into, but remember it is not as ideal as celibacy. But with this development in Christianity, Common Law Marriages (or equivalents of it) develop in parallel. It does not strike me as surprising that countries so close to the powerhouses of the Reformation would have no problem with rejecting marriage as an institution mandated by our human nature (as some claim is the case). So it is no surprise that the laws governing marriage, co-habitation, etc. in these areas would differ greatly from what we are used to here.
Consider my summary of what seems to be the major perspectives of what marriage is today and historically:
Marriage is a vehicle for creating a family unit, with procreation being the traditional means to do so. Separating marriage from parenthood is damaging to this understanding of marriage. If this is the predominant purpose of marriage (as Genesis commands to “be fruitful and multiply”), then it is obvious that gay marriage stands at odds since procreation in and of the union is not possible (in vitro and surrogacy notwithstanding). However, the question must be raised of heterosexual couples unable to or who choose not to procreate. Are they failing to honor what the institution of marriage is about? What of a couple that adopts children? Are they not creating a family and being fruitful? If procreation is the ultimate purpose of marriage, then it would seem that society would be bent on making sure marriages are between healthy, fecund men and women. However, it seems that this is not the case. We are not engaged in eugenics because creating new people is not the sole purpose of marriage. Surely, some will say, that having children is a part of the institution of marriage, but that need not define it. I quite agree. Being able to have children should not define marriage.
Marriage is a contract between people. I do not write that ambiguous to gender for the sake of the gay marriage argument, but because that is historically the case. Marriage due to love of one’s partner is a rather new development. Instead, it was not until around the 12th century that love being involved at all came into play thanks to traveling troubadours singing of courtly love. In Ancient Rome and Greece, it was more the case that marriages were sound decisions for economic, social, or political purposes. Arranged marriages are still done today and reflect this trend. Throughout history, therefore, marriage was a contract between families, often including a dowry or some other compensation. Although done informally for the most part, gradually did the Church and the State become more involved in the entire process. Hence why, despite the love shared between two people today, a marriage license is obtained from a legal entity prior to and completely separate from performing a religious service. The legal entity is necessary because of the economic issues involved in a marriage (joining estates, name changes, etc.) and the religious entity is (recently and selectively) necessary to spiritually bind people together. But this is not historically the case and not legally necessary. Therefore, the separation of Church and State in our country seems all the more appropriate in regards to marriage since, historically, the Church only recently became assertively involved in the institution of marriage.
Marriage is a life-long union. This seems to be the more conventional understanding of marriage. It is a union of two people, traditionally understood to be a man and a woman. In the legality, this union continues beyond death since issues regarding finances, estate, and relations continue after life. In theology, it is difficult to know when this union ends. Jesus explicitly states that at the resurrection (the End Times), there will be no marriage, but whether that is the same as the afterlife for now is not clear. Within this more conventional understanding of marriage, there is a complex blend of emotional, intellectual, spiritual, religious, economic, personal, and social reasons to marry (and I’m sure that list is not exhaustive). Due to the gradual trend of the Church getting involved in the theretofore legal institution of marriage, the religious aspect of the institution has risen in importance. In America, it has become paramount when it comes to discussing what marriage is. It is a cultural, legal, political, social, personal, and religious institution that carries with it as much weight as we manage to give it. However, because our country is, as per the Reformers wishes, very much involved in the institution of marriage, this makes separating out the Church and the State very difficult. The State has the responsibility of serving all of its citizens equally, without regard for religious matters. The Church has the responsibility of serving of all humanity equally, without regard for worldly matters. Ironically, the institution of marriage seems to have married the State and the Church together since our culture predominantly understands both are inextricably involved. The interchangeability of the term “marriage” in purely legal and purely religious conversations points to the frustrating nature of the debate.
For Americans, the issue becomes where does the law end and religion begin. If the debate surrounding gay marriage is on a legal level, then historical precedent seems to tell us that there is no reason to preclude people of the same-sex marrying since it would be in line with the majority of marriages entered into throughout history (as a legal, political, social, and economic arrangement). The religious concern over gay marriage stems from the perspective that homosexual activity is sinful and cannot be condoned by the sacrament of marriage. However, if marriage is not a sacrament of the Church (as Protestants claim), but merely something the Church presides over, then to what extent can religion prevent people from marrying one another?
Despite all of this, marriage has still become an inculcated aspect of our culture. It is the ultimate relationship between two people in our nation, both legally and socially. Despite efforts to make domestic partnerships fully equal to married persons, there are still inequalities abound (culturally and legally). For the United States, as a nation-state, it seems an injustice to preclude people partaking of this cultural institution. The concern over the demise of marriage is contingent upon people beginning to feel that marriage is an unnecessary institution (as seems to be the case in Denmark, Norway, Holland, etc.). To prevent that happening, one should not seek to prevent others from entering into it, but instead enriching and bettering the institution itself. In some countries, marriage is viewed as unnecessary or superfluous. In America, it has become the cultural epitome of life-long love, devotion, and commitment. It is rapidly becoming not so much an issue of “How can we define marriage for you?” but more of a question of “How is marriage defined for me?” This is not to promote a post-modern fragmentation of the definition of marriage, making it devoid of meaning. This is to point to the more fruitful approach to the issue where each couple, or potential couple, really engages each other, themselves, and their communities to determine how they can truly benefit from entering into a marriage. It is counter-intuitive and counter-productive to declare that one marriage devalues another. If concern for the sanctity of marriage is evoked as a reason for preventing gay marriage, it would seem that the number of marriages dissolving is far more problematic and threatening.
Instead of seeking to define marriage for all, we should look metaphorically to the indicative nature of the wedding ceremony. Each couple seeks to not only enter into the relationship of marriage, but to do so in a manner that is unique to the couple being wed. The couple, the location, the people present, the words spoken, the vows exchanged, etc. are all dynamically special for each ceremony. While elements of the ceremony may be in common, those commonalities vary from culture to culture except in the underlying foundation: life-long commitment. If each couple is looking to uniquely enter into their own life-long commitment, how can that special event, that momentous ceremony be tainted by the uniqueness of another marriage? Who stands at the altar and feels their bond with the person across the way lessened because of how others performed their own ceremonies?
I researched and shared all of this to learn more about how to go about beginning to answer the question “What is marriage?” I still do not feel that I have a good grasp, which I’m sure partially stems from having never been married myself. However, as one who hopes to be someday, I consider it a very important question. Tracing the history of the institution, for me, points to the peculiarity of Christianity hijacking the institution from pagan cultures, elevating it to such a high status (functionally forgetting celibacy is even higher), fighting within itself as to what it actually is (Protestants vs. Catholics), and then trying to stake some sort of claim over what marriage actually is in the legal realm. Perhaps the desire is to apophatically define marriage by declaring that same-sex couples is what marriage is not. But that harkens back to the Church pushing for similar definitions in regards to women and people of color in other aspects of Church and civil life. Will allowing gay marriage be the beginning of the end? Will people then want to marry animals? Will it lead to the disappearance of heterosexuals? What does the Bible say?
