OFFICIAL SITE

Institute of Marriage

Research & Studies

Calling Something a Marriage Does Not Make It a Marriage

- Traditional Marriage

- The Logical Principle

- Should Government Out Marriage Business

- The Logical Principle

 
Traditional
Marriage

Since America’s founding marriage

has been an institution between a man and a woman. As a critical piece of our culture, traditional marriage

has been the center of all that

cultivates a family—second to none

the living spirit of man and woman

taking its instinctive course.

In every culture throughout the world there has always been a joining of people that today we may associate with marriage.  According to the etymology dictionary the word "marriage" originated and entered in the English language around 1300, meaning the "state or condition of being husband and wife, matrimony, wedlock." 

 

Even though homosexuality existed marriage remained between a man and a woman, and continued to do so as we took as our own the English language.

 

Throughout our history marriage has been a state or condition of being husband and wife, regardless of what brought together these two people. It is truly an American tradition by all rights recognizing the word that was created for it—marriage.

 

Between Man and Woman

 

"Marriage was once viewed as an arrangement by the couple’s parents based on political, religious, and financial concerns; but by the time of the Nation’s founding it was understood to be a voluntary contract between a man and a woman. See N. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation 9–17 (2000); S. Coontz, Marriage, A History 15–16 (2005)." — SCOTUS

_______

"Is there any word currently more contested in our culture than marriage? … When definitions are at  stake, as in the marriage debates, the dictionary can become a political football. … But are dictionaries really ‘our sources for what words mean’? That imparts a social power to lexicographers that they themselves would likely disavow: To them, dictionaries merely reflect common usage." The Fight Over Defining Marriage, Literally: Can Change the World by Changing the Dictionary?" — Ben Zimmer, The Boston Globe (June 10, 2012)

Should Government Get Out
of the Marriage Business

 

July 2017

 

Should government get out of the marriage business? Even lawmakers are asking that question. See this page: Togetherness for Marriage and Unions.

 

Presently, every state requires a "marriage license" to marry. Cf., Deborah MacDougall v. Richard S, Levick, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Virginia, No. Cl-2011-0004071, October 10, 2013 ("A marriage ceremony with a marriage license has no legal effect. Similarly, a marriage license without a marriage ceremony has no legal effect.").  

 

According to Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. 1990, the word license is defined as: "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."

 

To that Rev. Matthew Trewhella asked "Why should it be illegal to marry without the State's permission? More importantly, why should we need the State's permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)?"

 

But what if the state denied the marriage license? After all, the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. Rev. Trewhella continued: "A license by definition confers a right to do something. The state cannot grant the right to marry—it is a God-given right."

 

The marriage license began in the middle ages as a private contract between two families and often was recorded in the local church; especially in England. Usually the word of the couple that they had married was sufficient to have the marriage recorded as such.

 

From the start as American colonies most of our laws concerning marriage were inherited from England. It was not until around the 1920’s was there such thing as a marriage license. The states invented them as a way to dictate who could and could not get married, primarily to prevent interracial marriage.

 

By then 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks. "Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a mental defect. Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce." Taking Marriage Private, Stephane Coontz, The New York Time, November 26, 2007.

 

Eventually, the courts invalidated all laws prohibiting mixed race marriages, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners. See, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), invalidating laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

 

However, the government continued to require marriage license for another purpose; and for married couples that meant certain benefits to being married. Including, Social Security, medical, legal and survivorship rights.  

 

But with same-sex marriage debates and opposition which continue, even lawmakers are "considering the privatization of marriage by halting the issuance of state marriage licenses, thereby freeing people to make their own marriage contracts according to their conscience, religion and common sense." There’s a Contract for That, Kim Paris, The Huffington Post, September 1, 2015.

 

Again "contracts could be registered with the state, recognized as legal and arbitrated by the courts, but the terms would be determined by those involved." For most part, though, the government would be out of the marriage business. Id.

___________________

 

For further valuable information concerning marriage license:

 

Marriage.com: Unlocking the Past: Marriage License History

https://www.marriage.com/advice/license/unlocking-the-past-marriage-license-history/

 

Ancestry.com: Marriage Records

https://www.ancestry.com/wiki/index.php?title=Marriage_Records

 

The Logical Principle

April 2017

In logic there is a principle known as the Law of the Excluded Middle. A thing either is or it is not.

 

Wayne Jackson in an article titled Foundational Truths Regarding Marriage wrote "Marriage originated from God, or else it did not. If it did not originate from God, then it must have originated from a non-God source. If that was the case, human beings must have originated the institution, and thus they may do with it as they please."

 

He then continued, "On the other hand, if God is the author of the marriage relationship, he, being sovereign (Psalm 47:2; cf. Daniel 4:34-35), had the absolute right to set the rules for ordering this time-honored institution."

 

Of course, we find in the ancient Hebrew record that marriage is the result of the creation of man and woman having been made especially for one another as husband and wife (Genesis 2:21-24); and later Jesus, appealing to this very text, endorsed the proposition that marriage was instituted by God (see: Matthew 19:4-5; Mark 10:6). Also, there is no record of marriage before God’s creation.

 

Thus, the question is fairly simple. Where did marriage originate from?

 

Marriage Statistics

January 2018

Updated September 15, 2018

UPDATE: Divorce rate continues to drop and possible reason.

 

A new study results, "The Coming Divorce Decline," indicates the divorce rate in the United States has dropped 18 percent from 2008 to 2016.

 

The study, by sociology professor Philip N. Cohen, University of Maryland, submitted on September 14, 2018, suggests that one “of the reasons for the decline is that the married population is getting older and more highly educated.”

 

Also, the fact that fewer people are getting married and those who do are the sort of people who are least likely to get divorced; and that marriage is more and more an achievement of status, rather than something that people do regardless of how they are doing.

___________________

“The Coming Divorce Decline,” Philip N. Cohen, University of Maryland, submitted on September 14, 2018 (edited September 15, 2018), at https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/h2sk6/.

January 2018

The latest yearly available government figures (2016) pertaining to marriage in the United States, for the year reveal:

 

Total Population: 323,127,513

Number of Marriages: 2,245,404

Marriage rate: 6.9 per 1,000 population

Number of Divorces: 827,261

Divorce rate: 3.2 per 1,000 population

 

In 2014-2016, we saw the highest number of marriages—suggesting that marriage rates may be stabilizing after decades of decline.

 

At the same time in 2015, the divorce rate dropped to its lowest point in nearly 40 years; which had peaked at about 40% around 1980.

 

Divorce among LGBT (4.3% adult Americans identity as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender) is 9.8% total its population.

 

Two years after Obergefell v. Hodges and among those identifying as LGBT, 10.2% are in same-sex marriage, 13.1% are married to the opposite sex, and 55.7% have never been married.

___________________

 

U.S. Department of Health & Services, CDC/National Center for Health Statistics, www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/national_marriage_divorce_rates_00-16.pdf,

cf. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/national_marriage_divorce_rates_00-16.pdf.

 

National Center for Family and Marriage Research, Bowling Green State University,

www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/anderson-divorce-rate-us-geo-2015-fp-16-21.html.

 

Gallup, In U.S., 10.2% of LGBT Adults Now Married to Same-Sex Spouse, June 22, 2017, http://news.gallup.com/poll/212702/lgbt-adults-married-sex-spouse.aspx.

- Bible's Marriage

- Togetherness for Marriage and Unions

- First Gay Couple to Marry Inside Prison

- U.S. Supreme Court on Right to Marry

 
Bible's
Marriage

 

God intended marriage to be a

permanent, intimate bond between

a man and a woman; that they

may be capable of satisfying each

other’s emotional and sexual

need sand of providing children.

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2:21-24 (NKJV).

 

Thus, God intended marriage to be a permanent, intimate bond between a man and a woman, who are designed to complement each other so they may be capable of satisfying each other’s emotional and sexual needs and of providing children.

 

Jesus addressing this spoke on the importance and sacredness of lifelong marriage, telling us in Matthew 19:3-6 that God created humanity as male and female (Genesis 1:27); confirming that in marriage they are no longer two, but one flesh.

 

There can be no question but that God established rules governing marriage long before governments began regulating the institution. See also, 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33. "Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." Mark 10:6-9 (NKJV).

 

Those are the first words of marriage (Genesis 2:24); no others precede them. They tell us both the creation and meaning, the Bible’s definition of marriage.

1 Corinthians 7:3-4 (NKJV)

Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband

does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

Togetherness for
Marriage and Unions

 

March 2017

 

The word “marriage” in and of itself brings with it a spiritual feeling, one which signifies inseparable the instinctive bond (or foreplay) which pleasures the natural fatherly and motherly instincts or attraction between two people.

 

While civil laws recognize marriage as having social and political statuses, Christian theology affirms the secular status but also views it from a moral and religious perspective that transcends all social interests. Certainly, it is the latter that the spiritual feeling of marriage deprives from.

 

If the secular status of marriage is nothing more than social and political, merely a contract between two people, why call it a marriage rather than what it is—a civil contract or union?

 

An interesting article a while back asked this same question in a different way. It mentioned lawmakers from four states “considering the privatization of marriage by halting the issuance of state marriage licenses, thereby freeing people to make their own marriage contracts according to their conscience, religion and common sense.” There’s a Contract for That, Kim Paris, The Huffington Post, September 1, 2015.

 

The article went on to read the “contracts could be registered with the state, recognized as legal and arbitrated by the courts, but the terms would be determined by those involved.” Id.

 

“[T]he idea that states should get out of the business of regulating and granting permission to marry is hardly monopolized by religious fundamentalists. In fact, more and more people from all political backgrounds are beginning to ask the same question.” Id.

 

Finally, the article asked “why does the state have to give citizens permission to marry? Anyone desiring a separate religious sacrament would be free to do so, leaving the terminology "marriage" as a strictly religious concept for groups to debate outside the scope of government.” Id.

 

Whether or not the government should altogether be removed from the business of issuing marriage licenses, or in the alternative issue licenses for the union of people, it may be the direction to go. In that way and most noticeably with the latter, everyone can have their day of “togetherness” recognized by the government: those who want a legal union but not in the spiritual sense, those in the spiritual sense (and what that means) seeking their togetherness, and those who in the man and woman living spirit taking its instinctive course wanting to marry.

 

First Homosexual Couple to Marry Inside Prison

July 2017

British inmates Marc Goodwin and Mikhail Gallatinov became the first homosexual couple to marry one another inside prison at Full Sutton prison near York, England, in 2015. Ironically, both are serving life sentences for hate crimes targeting homosexuals.[1]

 

In the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 recognized that marriage was a fundamental right,[2]  and later in 1987 extended that same right to prisoners.[3]

 

To date, however, there are not any known cases in the United States that any homosexual couples while in prison have married one another.

 

[1] http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gay-marriage-prison/2016/12/21/id/765101/

[2] Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

[3] Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)

 

U.S. Supreme Court on
the Right to Marry

 

September 2017

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

 

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

 

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

 

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

 

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

 

Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

 

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

 

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

 

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

 

Zabbocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

 

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

 

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

 

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

 

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

 

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US ___ (2015): “The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central mean­ing of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.” “The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed out of State.”

- Court's Marriage

- U.S. Supreme Court Justices

- When Does Marriage Begin

 
Court's
Marriage

 

 On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme

Court in a 5-4 decision said that

same-sex marriage was protected

under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment; in effect changing the definition of marriage. 

 Obergefell v. Hodges was argued April 28, 2015. Two questions were before the  Court asking whether the Fourteenth Amendment: (1) require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex; and (2) require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state?

  

The Court on June 26, 2015 held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples.

 

Four "principles and traditions" were identified by the Court that provided precedent which it considered and relied on:

 

1. Marriage as a personal choice "is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy,"

 

2. Marriage is "fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals," 

 

3. Marriage "safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childbearing, procreation, and education," and

 

4. Marriage "is a keystone of all social order" and there "is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to these principles."

 

Five Justices, including all three women Justices, voted in favor; while four, including the only African-American Justice, voted against. Each of the four Justice voting against wrote strong

dissenting opinions.

 

Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. wrote that the Constitution does not address the right

of same-sex couples to marry, and therefore the issue is reserved to the states to decide whether to depart from the traditional definition of marriage.

We the People

 

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and former constitutional law professor summed it up stating: "'We the People' no longer control the content of our Constitution. The Constitution is now

whatever five justices say it is," Kobach added. "Make no mistake; this opinion  had nothing to do with interpreting the  text of the Constitution or applying previous legal precedents. This opinion

was all about rewriting the Constitution to reshape our nation according to the liberl preferences of our five rulers. It is a very sad day for the Constitution and the rule of law.” Koback on Facebook, June 26, 2015.

 

__________________

For the oral arguments before the Supreme Court:

www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q1

For the written decision of the Supreme Court:

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

  

U.S. Supreme Court Justice

(Obergefell v. Hodges)

Front Row, left to right:

Clarence Thomas

Antonin Scalia

John G. Roberts (Chief Justice)

Anthony M. Kennedy*

Ruth Bader Ginsburg*

Back Row, left to right:

Sonia Sotomayor*

Stephen G. Breyer*

Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

Elena Kagan*

* Voted in favor of same-sex marriages

Justice Neil Gorsuch in April 2017, replaced

Justice Antonin Scalia who died in February 2016.

United States Supreme Court

Obergefell v. Hodges, Case No. 14–556

Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015

DECISION:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

First Homosexual Couple to Marry Inside Prison

July 2017

British inmates Marc Goodwin and Mikhail Gallatinov became the first homosexual couple to marry one another inside prison at Full Sutton prison near York, England, in 2015. Ironically, both are serving life sentences for hate crimes targeting homosexuals.[1]

 

In the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 recognized that marriage was a fundamental right,[2]  and later in 1987 extended that same right to prisoners.[3]

 

To date, however, there are not any known cases in the United States that any homosexual couples while in prison have married one another.

 

[1] http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gay-marriage-prison/2016/12/21/id/765101/

[2] Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

[3] Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)

 

When Does Marriage Begin?

September 2017

At what point is it too late for the runaway bride, the nervous groom; can a man and a woman look at one another and say they are married?

 

The most popular responses to the moment two people are married is when the groom and bride: (1) share their vows; (2) say "I do" to one another; (3)  kiss at the end of the ceremony; (4) the pronunciation they are man and wife; (5) when the marriage certificate is signed; or (6) when they consummate the marriage.

 

The Commixtio Sexuum

 

Western perceptions of marriage have largely been shaped by Christianity to the extent that in order to understand what constitutes marriage one must consider Christian views of marriage as they developed over time. Yet, the Bible nowhere explicitly states at what point God considers a man and a woman to be married. Due to the Bible is largely silence on this matter, identifying the precise moment a man and woman are married in God’s eyes can be a bit challenging.

 

Let us start with that for much of history “all that was required to establish a marriage was that two people of opposite sexes, who were free to marry and who were not related within the forbidden degrees, freely exchanged marriage vows which expressed their consent to marry at once.  Neither the family consent nor the presence of witnesses or of a priest was required.”[1]

 

As for the exact moment when a husband and wife are considered married, John Grantin of Bologna in the 12th century may have been the first to write about this.[2] In doing so he focused on the commixtio sexuum; in other words the consummation of marriage.[3]

 

Grantin was heavily influenced by the Sententiae Magistri A (compilation of predominantly patristic excerpts) dossier and the three sententiaes ascribed to Augustine and Pope Leo I, as follows:

 

“Augustine: marriage in not perfect when sexual intercourse (commixtio sexuum) does not follow, and marriage does not have in itself a sacrament of Christ and the Church if sexual intercourse (commixtio sexuum) does not follow it. Nor is the woman in whom it is shown that there has been no sexual intercourse able to belong to marriage. Pope Leo: since the partnership of marriage was instituted from the beginning in such a way that without sexual intercourse (praeter commixtionem sexuum) it should not have in itself a sacrament of Christ and the church (Eph 5:32), there is no doubt that a woman in whom it is shown that there has been no nuptial mystery does not belong to marriage.”[4]

 

Introducing Civil Law

 

Today in the United States, as in much of the world, marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman changing their legal status giving them new rights and obligations.[5]

 

Typically, a couple wanting to marry must first obtain from the county clerk a marriage license, followed with a wedding ceremony. The person who performed the ceremony then must file a marriage certificate in the appropriate county office.[6]

 

No longer is the requirement that marriage be “consummated” to be legally recognized; though, not being able to or refusing to consummate the marriage may be grounds for an annulment or for divorce.[7]

 

Continuing the Search

 

While civil laws recognize marriage as having social and political statuses, Christian theology not only affirms the secular status of marriage but additionally views it from a moral and religious perspective that transcends all social interests.

 

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced back to Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Ephesians 5:23-32).

 

According to Scripture marriage is ordained by God as an intimate and permanent partnership between a man and a woman in which the two become one in the whole of life (Gen. 2:18, 21-24).

 

However, many would add God only considers a man and a woman married when they are legally married. The scriptural support typically given for this view is the command to obey the laws of government (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:17). The argument is that, if the government requires certain procedures and paperwork to be completed before a marriage is recognized, then a couple should submit themselves to that process. Id.

 

When Marriage Begins

 

While for much of history all that was required was for the man to say "I take you as my wife" (and visa versa), in which case the marriage was binding immediately as soon as it was consummated, today with civil laws much more is involved.

 

The groom and bride may share their vows with one another and consider themselves at that point to be married, but legally speaking one or the other can walk away without being married. It is the same with saying "I do" to one another or the kiss at the end of the ceremony.

 

Even the pronunciation they are “man and wife” by the person who performed the marriage ceremony, may not be enough if the marriage certificate is not signed and filed in the appropriate county office.

 

At what point can a man and a woman look at one another and say they are married, depends on how much they focus on God and to what extent civil law takes priority. For the greater part it may be a personal matter and no better a picture of that, than the one Cheryl Branch shared of her marriage:

 

"I will speak from the perspective of remembering when I felt and knew that Dan and I went from being the bride and the groom to being husband and wife. It was the moment that we had finished saying our vows. I knew I was his wife at that point, before the kiss, before my dad presented us to the audience as husband and wife, and definitely before we had our 'wedding night' a couple of hundred miles and several hours later. If we had a car wreck on the way to our home that day in which one of us died and if we never made it to our wedding bed, I still would have been his wife and he still would have been my husband."

 

Thus, it is a question for the husband and wife pertaining to them.

[1] Marriage Disputes in Medieval England, Frederik Pedersen (2000), pg 4.

[2] Id. at 3, John Grantin of Bologna, Concordia Discordantium Cononum (The Harmony of Discordant Canons) 1140.

[3] Id. at 3; cf. Gratian’s Notion of Marital Consummation, John A. Alessandro (1971), pp. 1-2; Law, Sex and Christian Society, James A. Brundage (1987), pp. 235-40. Both Alessandro and Brundage understand the phrase commixtio sexuum to mean straightforward intercourse.

[4] How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments, Philip L. Reynolds (2016), pg 271; Regional Variations in Matrimonial Law and Custom in Europe, 1150-1600, Mia Korpiola (2011), pg 52.

[5] Cornell School, Legal Information Institute: “The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.”

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

OUR OBJECTIVE

Collecting information and facts, separating it from misconception and fallacies, for real knowledge and seeking the truth, to say what is already known or needs to be known—in absence of politically correct and other unjust demands.   

COPYRIGHT © 2017

It should be assumed that a particular article or material has copyright protections. Permission to reprint or copy a particular article or material from this website is hereby given to individuals and nonprofit organizations

CONTACT & COMMENTS

Jerry Krause,  President                 

Marcia Martinez, Vice President

© 2023 by HARMONY. Proudly created with Wix.com