Writer's Block: Church and State
Yes, and of course, no.
Very, terribly NO. At the same time, government is given the troubling job of trying to do a great many things, most of which are either impossible or conflict with each other, and one of the things we typically demand from any kind of governing body is to validate things, and, of course to with hold that validation from others, the criteria being one of those things that causes government much trouble as we are a many and diverse group of minds, humanity, even within a single state, culture, or small gathering of peoples for any reason. So, our culture defines societal norms and government validates based on that, culture being a sort of unconcious consensus of everything from evolutionary programing to the weirdest quirks of human imagination, though, of course, culture is an ongoing unconscious conversation (as well as several conscious ones) and is about as static as an ocean, so, by the time government figures out what it should validate...its usually behind, and, there are always those who don't agree with cultural trends, or, even deep rooted traditions. The will of the people is a terrible, fickle, and impossible thing.
So, yes, in many places, government is charged with the job of validating marriages. The U.S. then, and now, is one of them. Traditional Netsilik Eskimo groups were not, as they did not have formal government and went straight off culture. Neither system was perfect for marriage or anything else. But, Netsilik marriage was not a governmental affair, it was a cultural, communal, and of course, personal one. No authority was involved at all, nor, was there ritual.
Government can only ever really say what marriages it will and will not recognise anyway, and what goes on in the hearts of humans has nothing whatsoever to do with it. But, the truth is that it is not fear of the government, or even religion that really keeps people from marrying horses or their parents with any regularity, its our own biology, which generally tells us horses and close relatives are not the best mates. But then mating and marriage only ever have so much to do with each other, and often nothing to do with love, and love (and actually mating) show a much more persistant refusal to be legislated. So the idea that without somekind o definition of marriage by goverment people will all start marrying (mating, lusting after, and loving in romantic ways) their siblings, same and opposite sex, and generally carrying on in a way determental to society is, actually, completely false. Government involvement in marriage is only a matter of convinence, and organization so that when there are disputes in the cases of inheritence, custody of children or possesions, etc. the government has some framework to work with. But when did government marriages really ever keep people from mating (and/or loving) whoever they very well pleased?
Very, terribly NO. At the same time, government is given the troubling job of trying to do a great many things, most of which are either impossible or conflict with each other, and one of the things we typically demand from any kind of governing body is to validate things, and, of course to with hold that validation from others, the criteria being one of those things that causes government much trouble as we are a many and diverse group of minds, humanity, even within a single state, culture, or small gathering of peoples for any reason. So, our culture defines societal norms and government validates based on that, culture being a sort of unconcious consensus of everything from evolutionary programing to the weirdest quirks of human imagination, though, of course, culture is an ongoing unconscious conversation (as well as several conscious ones) and is about as static as an ocean, so, by the time government figures out what it should validate...its usually behind, and, there are always those who don't agree with cultural trends, or, even deep rooted traditions. The will of the people is a terrible, fickle, and impossible thing.
So, yes, in many places, government is charged with the job of validating marriages. The U.S. then, and now, is one of them. Traditional Netsilik Eskimo groups were not, as they did not have formal government and went straight off culture. Neither system was perfect for marriage or anything else. But, Netsilik marriage was not a governmental affair, it was a cultural, communal, and of course, personal one. No authority was involved at all, nor, was there ritual.
Government can only ever really say what marriages it will and will not recognise anyway, and what goes on in the hearts of humans has nothing whatsoever to do with it. But, the truth is that it is not fear of the government, or even religion that really keeps people from marrying horses or their parents with any regularity, its our own biology, which generally tells us horses and close relatives are not the best mates. But then mating and marriage only ever have so much to do with each other, and often nothing to do with love, and love (and actually mating) show a much more persistant refusal to be legislated. So the idea that without somekind o definition of marriage by goverment people will all start marrying (mating, lusting after, and loving in romantic ways) their siblings, same and opposite sex, and generally carrying on in a way determental to society is, actually, completely false. Government involvement in marriage is only a matter of convinence, and organization so that when there are disputes in the cases of inheritence, custody of children or possesions, etc. the government has some framework to work with. But when did government marriages really ever keep people from mating (and/or loving) whoever they very well pleased?