One of the
staple plot themes of the drama, opera and ballet of past centuries is the
business of marriage. Usually, this is
centred on who might marry who and for what reasons. Typically, there is confusion, errors, deceit
and sometimes general mayhem.
What is at
the centre of all this is the marriage contract or settlement with lawyers or
attorneys dealing with the business.
These involve not just the individuals who might marry but also their
families, or guardians or other figures who wield authority.
Sometimes a
clergyman is hovering around, sometimes they might have a role in the plot more
rarely are they of much importance.
There are exceptions. Notably, in
“Romeo and Juliet” a whole lot of trouble is caused by a friar who administers
the religious sacrament of marriage without a contract between the families
having been made.
The
explanation for all this arises from the Christian idea that there is The City
of God and The City of Earth. In this
case a marriage has two forms of existence.
One is that it conforms to the laws of man (Earth) and is a formal
contract about property and family responsibilities.
The other
is that as such a marriage is likely to result in children; that is the
creation of souls, then it is a sacrament which should be blessed and
recognised for the two people who will be afflicted with the burden of bringing
up the children in the faith.
At least
all this is theory, but in the past, as ever, practice too often was distinct
from theory. If I were to trawl through
all the possible variations, interesting that they may be, this would be a very
long post. But when there is marriage,
money and property then at some time there is also probate to consider.
The many
and various situations that arose caused huge numbers of legal cases, often
centred on probate but also about who owned which land or was entitled to this
or that. Common to these was the absence
of any reliable record of a marriage or indeed who were the children of who.
So the
State intervened. In England , as the
Parish was the basic unit of local administration and as there was a state
Church, that became the place of record for marriage and the recording of
births and deaths. This caused immediate
problems for the many who were not of the Church of England and whose records
did not have legal standing, so the cases continued to pile up.
By the
1830’s in England and Wales , later followed by Scotland and Ireland , a new type of Civil
Registration allowed marriages of all kinds, with births and deaths to be recorded
locally, with copies held centrally.
This did tidy things up, but there were still many who did not
bother.
Again, you
have to keep probate in mind in all this.
Many a problem arose because wills were not made or badly drawn up and
so laws were made to determine the basis for distributing inheritances.
Broadly
speaking, this basic system worked for over a century although with
difficulties in some areas. But what has
happened is that as social habits have changing radically together with the introduction
of complex state benefit schemes, marriage became just one form of partnership
arrangement, albeit the majority one and limited to a male and female.
But as well
as “gay” partnerships, or a male and female partnership outside marriage, that
is relationships with a sexual component, there are other forms of partnership
which have there own validity and have their own value to society as well as
the individuals concerned.
What about
the daughter/niece/son/nephew or other who are in a partnership situation for
the care of the elderly or the severely handicapped? What about two (or more) people who live
together for a social and not a sexual purpose?
There
always have been and there are many today in that situation. Moreover, many of these are vulnerable under
Probate. If a will is not there or does
not make clear the informal contractual relationship there can be some losing
out in a way that is unjust.
There have
been too many cases where someone turns up at deathbeds with witnesses who claimed
to have had agreement from people who were comatose or had severe loss of
faculties, to sign away their property.
The laws on probate can be easily bent for criminal purposes.
This is the
area that has been forgotten in the row about “gay” marriage. It is just another partnership for a personal
or social purpose. One of the jobs of
government is to try to see the wider issues.
There are many other types of partnership for valid purposes that are
not covered by the protection offered by the status of marriage.
If marriage
is not just about a man and woman coming together to make and bring up a family
in the context of other family but now means the possibility of a much wider
range of partnerships why are so many of these not considered?
It is typical
of UK
government at the moment that the politicians simply give in to a small
pressure group with media sympathy instead of looking at what else might be
necessary or advisable in the much wider social context.
George
Bernard Shaw had a lot to say about marriage, in “Pygmalion” that became the
musical “My Fair Lady”, Alfred P. Doolittle, having come into money that made
him middle class was obliged to marry after many years being perfectly happy
with more informal arrangements.
A man
before his time…………….
"why are so many of these not considered?"
ReplyDeleteNo fashionable political kudos I suppose, but it's a good point.