\n<\/strong>Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution<\/span>. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. “Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands,” said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. “We say, ‘When and where?'” The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy<\/span> \u2014 according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines \u2014 and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world.<\/p>\n
The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development.<\/span> Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, “monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion” of the world population, found in “just Western Europe and little settlements in North America.”<\/p>\n When did people start marrying?<\/strong> When did the church get involved?<\/strong> What role did love play?<\/strong> In fact, love and marriage were once widely regarded as incompatible with one another. A Roman politician was expelled from the Senate in the 2nd century B.C. for kissing his wife in public \u2014 behavior the essayist Plutarch condemned as “disgraceful.” In the 12th and 13th centuries, the European aristocracy viewed extramarital affairs as the highest form of romance, untainted by the gritty realities of daily life. And as late as the 18th century, the French philosopher Montesquieu wrote that any man who was in love with his wife was probably too dull to be loved by another woman.<\/span><\/p>\n Levirate marriage became part of the Law in Deuteronomy 25:5\u20136<\/a>. There, the Israelites are commanded to care for women whose husbands died before they had children. An unmarried brother of the deceased man bore a responsibility to marry his sister-in-law: God called it \u201cthe duty of a brother-in-law\u201d (Deuteronomy 25:5<\/a>). God\u2019s purpose for levirate marriage is stated: \u201cThe first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel\u201d (verse 6). In ancient Israel the passing on of the family name and the inheritance within a tribe were vitally important (see Numbers 36:7<\/a> and 1 Kings 21:3<\/a>).<\/p>\n Notice that levirate marriage was a match not born out of affection but out of duty<\/span>.\u00a0 Deut 25:7-10 illustrates this very well:<\/p>\n 7\u00a0<\/sup>However, if a man does not want to marry his brother\u2019s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, \u201cMy husband\u2019s brother refuses to carry on his brother\u2019s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.\u201d<\/span> 8\u00a0<\/sup>Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, \u201cI do not want to marry her,\u201d<\/span> 9\u00a0<\/sup>his brother\u2019s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, \u201cThis is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother\u2019s family line.\u201d<\/span> 10\u00a0<\/sup>That man\u2019s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The social pressure specified here was enormous.\u00a0 The village elders, meanwhile, were intent upon providing for the widow from the resources of the family into which she married in the first place.\u00a0 If that family failed to care for her out of obligation and if her parents were unwilling to allow her to return home, then the community had another charity case to attend to.<\/p>\n In India today, widows are often expelled from the family home and left to languish on the streets and alleyways.\u00a0 This is done because the widow is held responsible (due to bad Karma) for the early death of her husband.\u00a0 In older times, the widow threw herself on the burning funeral pyre thus eliminating any need to take care of her.\u00a0 Today, along the shores of the Ganges River, communities of forsaken widows can be found.\u00a0 The women here learn to chant sacred pujas and are given meager food and lodging in exchange for their prayers.\u00a0 It is not a happy situation<\/a>, to be sure.<\/p>\n Notice that levirate marriage allows for loveless unions and for polygamy.\u00a0 Perhaps this explains why Jews have long ago abandoned levirate marriage,\u00a0 and even the most devout Jews are not anxious for its return<\/a> even though Deut 25:5 makes it clear that this is God’s will<\/span>.\u00a0 The existence of levirate marriage in Deut 25:5 also makes it clear that, when Gen 1-2 speaks of one-man-one-woman marriages, this does not mean that this precludes the mandating of one-man-two-women marriages in Deut 25:5.]<\/p>\n When did romance enter the picture?<\/strong> Did marriage change in the 20th century?<\/strong> Those who want to interact with this blog are invited to “Leave a Reply” below.\u00a0 A solid way to begin doing this is to offer “readback lines.”\u00a0 To do this, quickly glace back over the entire blog and pick out the one or two lines that have made a deep impression upon you.\u00a0 Copy them [CTRL-C] and then paste them\u00a0[CTRL-V] into an empty comment box below.\u00a0 If you wish, signal the emotion that you feel when reading your readback lines.\u00a0 The primary emotions are anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, surprise.\u00a0\u00a0 No need to further explain yourself.\u00a0 It is enough to identify the text important to you and to name the emotion(s) that it evokes.\u00a0 All of this normally takes less than a few minutes.<\/p>\n I and others will “thank you” for your contribution.\u00a0 If you are tempted to say more, I urge you to hold back.\u00a0 Your sense of safety and the safety of others is best protected by not getting overly wordy in the beginning.\u00a0<\/a> This will come after a few days or weeks.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Leave a Reply~~~~~~~~<\/p>\n ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" by The Week Staff Ron Royals\/Corbis\u00a0 June 1, 2012 Since the ancient world, marriage has evolved from a preservation of power to a personal contract between two equals seeking love, stability, and happiness. Has marriage always had\u00a0the same definition? Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone … <\/p>\n
\nThe first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies dates to 4,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia. In the ancient world, marriage served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs. Even in the lower classes, women had little say over whom they married. The purpose of marriage was the production of heirs, as implied by the Latin word matrimonium<\/em>, which is derived from mater <\/em>(mother).<\/p>\n
\nIn ancient Rome, marriage was a civil affair governed by imperial law. But when the empire collapsed, in the 5th century, church courts took over and elevated marriage to a holy union. As the church’s power grew through the Middle Ages, so did its influence over marriage. In 1215, marriage was declared one of the church’s seven sacraments, alongside rites like baptism and penance. But it was only in the 16th century that the church decreed that weddings [need to] be performed in public, by a priest, and before witnesses.<\/p>\n
\nFor most of human history, almost none at all. Marriage was considered too serious a matter to be based on such a fragile emotion. “If love could grow out of it, that was wonderful,” said Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage, a History<\/em>. “But that was gravy.”<\/p>\n![](\"http:\/\/www.truefreethinker.com\/sites\/default\/files\/images\/Marriage.jpg\")
In many societies, both ancient and modern, levirate marriage was practiced.\u00a0\u00a0 Among the Hebrews, a levirate marriage is literally a \u201cmarriage with a brother-in-law.\u201d The word levirate<\/i>, which has nothing to do with the tribe of Levi, comes from the Latin word levir<\/i>, \u201ca husband\u2019s brother.\u201d In ancient times, if a man died without a child, it was common for the man\u2019s unmarried brother to marry the widow in order to provide an heir for the deceased. A widow would marry a brother-in-law, and the first son produced in that union was considered the legal descendant of her dead husband.<\/p>\nWe see a couple of examples in the Bible of levirate marriage. The first is the story of Tamar and Onan in Genesis 38<\/a>. Tamar had been married to Er, a son of Judah. Er died, leaving Tamar childless (Genesis 38:6\u20137<\/a>). Judah\u2019s solution was to follow the standard procedure of levirate marriage: he told Er\u2019s brother Onan, \u201cSleep with your brother\u2019s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother\u201d (verse 8). Onan was more than willing to sleep with Tamar, but, unfortunately, he had no desire to have a child with her: \u201cOnan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother\u2019s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother\u201d (verse 9). In other words, Onan was taking selfish advantage of levirate marriage. He wanted sex with his sister-in-law, but he purposefully avoided impregnating her. God called Onan\u2019s actions \u201cwicked\u201d and killed him (verse 10).\u00a0 Onan was also aware that, if Tamar became pregnant, her child would claim a portion in the family inheritance.\u00a0 Thus, the inheritance coming to Onan would be diluted.<\/p>\n
\nIn the 17th and 18th centuries, when Enlightenment thinkers pioneered the idea that life was about the pursuit of happiness. They advocated marrying for love rather than wealth or status. This trend was augmented by the Industrial Revolution and the growth of the middle class in the 19th century, which enabled young men to select a spouse and pay for a wedding, regardless of parental approval. As people took more control of their love lives, they began to demand the right to end unhappy unions. Divorce became much more commonplace.<\/p>\n
\nDramatically. For thousands of years, law and custom enforced the subordination of wives to husbands. But as the women’s-rights movement gained strength in the late 19th and 20th centuries, wives slowly began to insist on being regarded as their husbands’ equals, rather than their property. “By 1970,” said Marilyn Yalom, author of A History of the Wife<\/em>, “marriage law had become gender-neutral in Western democracy.” At the same time, the rise of effective contraception fundamentally transformed marriage: Couples could choose how many children to have, and even to have no children at all. If they were unhappy with each other, they could divorce \u2014 and nearly half of all couples did. Marriage had become primarily a personal contract between two equals seeking love, stability, and happiness. This new definition opened the door to gays and lesbians claiming a right to be married, too<\/span>. “We now fit under the Western philosophy of marriage,” said E.J. Graff, a lesbian and the author of What Is Marriage For?<\/em><\/p>\n