We've all heard the childhood chirp that goes--"First comes love, then comes marriage...
" Most people can even recall where they were when they first heard it, and who they were with.
Most likely the other kids chimed in with the singy-songy little ditty when they imagined us a bit too close to a member of the opposite sex in second grade.
Kids are very good at using their radar to embarrass each other, and of course oblivious to the realities of marriage.
We adults may very well rearrange the chant to say "First comes love, then comes--a civil contract?" Not so romantic heard that way, but a lot closer to reality nonetheless.
Civil marriage is a legal construct, thus the law gives it efficacy and influence in our society.
Many people mention the traditional aspect of marriage, but the simple fact is that marriage itself has continually evolved over time, bending and contouring itself to the needs of people who partook of its myriad benefits and protections.
And the law hasn't always been particularly benevolent to the parties involved.
Only a few decades ago a traditional part of marriage was a codicil called coverture.
From the French word for 'covered', coverture defined two people in marriage as one unit, the primary member of which was the man.
Under coverture women were not allowed to own property, receive money for themselves, or pursue an education against the wishes of their husbands.
Of course the law has since been altered to remove such a blatant piece of discrimination.
Hundreds of years ago marriage was solely the means to an end, that being the solidification of property claims.
This was true largely of the landed gentry, as the marriage of peasantry was little more than the ritualistic 'jumping the broom' identified in certain other cultures.
The lower classes had no property, so marriage for them was a matter of convenience and necessity.
Common law marriage was a routine status in this country in the early part of the 19th, and into the 20th century, for the simple reason that judges were few and far between, and people needed to settle in and have children for help on their farms.
Waiting for legal purveyors of civil marriage, or any other civil affair to make the rounds was a luxury.
Even farther back in history, in the early years of the Catholic Church, marriage was regarded as a strictly legal affair, along the same lines as recently relevant Roman laws.
The church didn't recognize marriage as a sacrament for nearly 700 years.
Tradition has always had a way of bending and twisting to suit our needs, and that will continue.
Indeed, marriage itself has always been an evolving institution, largely because of changes in the law pertaining to it.
This is one reason that marriage benefits anyone entering into it; there are legal protections for nearly every aspect of civil marriage, including all the following, a list that is by no means definitive: Assumption of spouse's pension; automatic inheritance; automatic housing lease transfer; bereavement leave, or indeed any provision under the Family Medical Leave Act; burial determination; certain property rights; child custody; crime victim's recovery benefits; divorce protections; domestic violence protection; exemption from property tax on partner's death; immunity from testifying against a spouse, and on and on, all provisions in direct reference to legalities.
Indeed, our society has recognized that marriage is so central to stability and harmony that it's hard to overestimate its value.
And here, ironically, is one of the fundamental legal benefits of civil marriage: Divorce.
That's right.
Without marriage there can be no divorce.
This seems painfully obvious, but the implication is not as clear as it may seem.
Being a legal entity, civil marriage provides protections.
It is a contract between two people and the state in which they marry.
And, as we know all too well, many marriages end in divorce.
The stated legal protections are much more critical at that time than at the onset of a civil marriage.
Without marriage, the 'divorce' proceeding must be conducted without protection of any kind for one or both parties.
Thus the dilemma: if no civil marriage--how to provide protections to citizens, when a relationship involving property, or even children ends? Marriage is immersed in facts that are rarely discussed, and which always present a somewhat different reality than at first assumed.
First comes love, then come--the lawyers!
" Most people can even recall where they were when they first heard it, and who they were with.
Most likely the other kids chimed in with the singy-songy little ditty when they imagined us a bit too close to a member of the opposite sex in second grade.
Kids are very good at using their radar to embarrass each other, and of course oblivious to the realities of marriage.
We adults may very well rearrange the chant to say "First comes love, then comes--a civil contract?" Not so romantic heard that way, but a lot closer to reality nonetheless.
Civil marriage is a legal construct, thus the law gives it efficacy and influence in our society.
Many people mention the traditional aspect of marriage, but the simple fact is that marriage itself has continually evolved over time, bending and contouring itself to the needs of people who partook of its myriad benefits and protections.
And the law hasn't always been particularly benevolent to the parties involved.
Only a few decades ago a traditional part of marriage was a codicil called coverture.
From the French word for 'covered', coverture defined two people in marriage as one unit, the primary member of which was the man.
Under coverture women were not allowed to own property, receive money for themselves, or pursue an education against the wishes of their husbands.
Of course the law has since been altered to remove such a blatant piece of discrimination.
Hundreds of years ago marriage was solely the means to an end, that being the solidification of property claims.
This was true largely of the landed gentry, as the marriage of peasantry was little more than the ritualistic 'jumping the broom' identified in certain other cultures.
The lower classes had no property, so marriage for them was a matter of convenience and necessity.
Common law marriage was a routine status in this country in the early part of the 19th, and into the 20th century, for the simple reason that judges were few and far between, and people needed to settle in and have children for help on their farms.
Waiting for legal purveyors of civil marriage, or any other civil affair to make the rounds was a luxury.
Even farther back in history, in the early years of the Catholic Church, marriage was regarded as a strictly legal affair, along the same lines as recently relevant Roman laws.
The church didn't recognize marriage as a sacrament for nearly 700 years.
Tradition has always had a way of bending and twisting to suit our needs, and that will continue.
Indeed, marriage itself has always been an evolving institution, largely because of changes in the law pertaining to it.
This is one reason that marriage benefits anyone entering into it; there are legal protections for nearly every aspect of civil marriage, including all the following, a list that is by no means definitive: Assumption of spouse's pension; automatic inheritance; automatic housing lease transfer; bereavement leave, or indeed any provision under the Family Medical Leave Act; burial determination; certain property rights; child custody; crime victim's recovery benefits; divorce protections; domestic violence protection; exemption from property tax on partner's death; immunity from testifying against a spouse, and on and on, all provisions in direct reference to legalities.
Indeed, our society has recognized that marriage is so central to stability and harmony that it's hard to overestimate its value.
And here, ironically, is one of the fundamental legal benefits of civil marriage: Divorce.
That's right.
Without marriage there can be no divorce.
This seems painfully obvious, but the implication is not as clear as it may seem.
Being a legal entity, civil marriage provides protections.
It is a contract between two people and the state in which they marry.
And, as we know all too well, many marriages end in divorce.
The stated legal protections are much more critical at that time than at the onset of a civil marriage.
Without marriage, the 'divorce' proceeding must be conducted without protection of any kind for one or both parties.
Thus the dilemma: if no civil marriage--how to provide protections to citizens, when a relationship involving property, or even children ends? Marriage is immersed in facts that are rarely discussed, and which always present a somewhat different reality than at first assumed.
First comes love, then come--the lawyers!