The Hound says:” Marriage is a construct by government “.
Not so, marriage emanated from the Church. The Church made the rules and performed the ceremonmies. Church Courts had jurisdiction over marriage. The State deferred to the Church in relation to marriage, before the takeover of the Church by Henry V111. Church Courts later, became Courts of Equity, which became state administered, and legislation governs marriage instead of church edicts. Our federal legislation codified the already developed existing law of marriage.
The proposal now, is to hijack the word "marriage", and apply it to relationships which are not marriage. This will destroy the institution of marriage, against the interests of the community, and to cater to the senseless whim of a small minority of our population.
Same sex relationships are no longer illegal, but they are not marriage, and at this point, they have no status in the mainstream community, other than no longer attracting prosecution.A word needs to be invented for such relationships. They are not marriage.

Dear Leo,

«Not so, marriage emanated from the Church»

So accordingly, marriage is a Christian thing and thus couples where one or both do not happen to be Christian, cannot marry?

«The State deferred to the Church in relation to marriage, before the takeover of the Church by Henry V111»

May I remind you that England is just a small country with less than 1% of the world's population? Or are you claiming that only British Christians can marry?

«The proposal now, is to hijack the word "marriage"»

Too late, it has already been hijacked, not only by homosexuals but according to your system, also by non-Christians and the non-British, who all merrily marry already. The current proposal is to modify the term "legal marriage", a term which ought to disappear in a puff of smoke anyway.

«This will destroy the institution of marriage, against the interests of the community»

The British-Christian community, I presume?
Destroying the INSTITUTION of marriage (as opposed to marriage itself) is in fact in my interest, but perhaps you do not count those who are not British Christians as part of the community.

«Same sex relationships are no longer illegal, but they are not marriage»

And so are many other relationships not a marriage, including for example those that involve domestic-violence, that are not truly marriage even though the state and its government erroneously consider them as such.

Leo

I agree with most of what you say, however for many centuries, the couple could not marry in the church. You may recall Chaucer's Wyf of Bath "housbondes at chirch dore I have had five". The custom was to marry outside the church, and then go in for Mass to celebrate and bless it. So obviously it didn't emanate from the church in that sense.

And that was in the 14th century. The common law distilled the common features of different marriage customs of the ethnic patchwork of England. So it is also likely that the farther back in time we go, and into the Anglo-Saxon period, when life was much more tribal and localised, that church action was even less required, or rather invoked.

And before that, before the Christian period, obviously people still married. For example, in Caesar's Gallic Wars, he talks of the men of the pre-Roman populations having wives - of course they did. But obviously the institution didn't emanate from the Christian church.

So while the church courts had jurisdiction rather than the royal courts - it being rightly deemed none of the king's business - I think it is more accurate to say that marriage evolved from the usages of individual males and females and their families in forming sexual and reproductive relations.

Once mankind first recognised physical paternity, it is likely that marriage evolved from the woman and her family imposing a condition that she would not consent to sex unless the man solemnly promised in front of witnesses to support her and her children. In exchange for him committing his substance to one woman for life, and foregoing other women, he in turn required her undertaking that she would not deny him sex when he wanted (hence the traditional female vow to "obey").

Canon law never claimed that church action was necessary to constitute or legitimise, but only to bless, a marriage. AFAIK, it was always the case in canon law that marriage was brought into being by the actions of the parties, not of the church.

Thanks, Jardine. I made some unwarranted assumptions from my incomplete knowledge of the history of the Courts, but my simplistic view does not stand up on your detailed account of the background, particularly the former status of women as property.
Nevertheless, the current statutory law is a codification of the law as developed by the Courts from the background you have set out. It is not a construct of the state as suggested by the Hound.