09-11-2015, 07:46 AM
(09-10-2015, 06:00 PM)Benton Wrote: I think that's probably where we'd disagree. Marriages, typically, were agreements between families. How they were recognized, the traditions, varied by culture. But unless there was a dispute, the government did not get involved much until the 16-1700s depending on country.
Before that, you've got laws in some of the major civilizations, like Rome, typically aimed at regulating the contract part of it, or promoting population controls. But there wasn't the regulation of things like we have today.
No, I can't disagree that marriage is more regulated now than ever before. That is true for most things. But it should be noted that the reason the government did get involved in disputes was because the marriage held a civil value. It was a legal instrument. Less contracts in general were written down, your word was as good as such, so a marriage license wasn't necessary. But the civil value was similar.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
