Marriage and the non-traditional relationships Name Institution In the ancient of days the state used to have little say or control over whom a person marries. This is because marriage was considered a private contract entered between two persons of different families (Archuleta 2011). The validity of the union was confirmed by the parents’ approval of the relationship but not that of the church or the state. Christianity also played a significant role in determining the validity of marriage as based on the wishes and desires of the couples. The Catholic Church also provided a leeway for those persons claiming to have exchanged marital vows even in privacy. In 1215 the church issued a decree that a legitimate marriage was that only conducted in church. However the people who married in an illicit manner were accorded the same rights privileges and obligations as those who had married in church. The children of “illicit marriages” were as legitimate as of the licit marriages. The wife also had the same inheritance rights and the couple was subjected to similar prohibitions against divorce in the same manner as their counterparts. Things took a different turn in the 16th century when the law required that marriages were to be conducted under legal auspices. European states supposedly adopted this requirement as a means of frustrating the union of young adults whose relationship was not well received by their parents. In the 1920s 38 states illegalized marriages between whites and blacks Mongolians Chinese Japanese Indians and mulattos. During this time 12 states declined to offer marriage licenses if either of the partners was drunk or had mental defects. Another 18 states had barriers that made it difficult for divorcees to remarry. During mid 20th century governments starting drifting away from the issue of deciding the person fit to marry or those unfit for marriage. The judicial system invalidated the interracial marriage laws pulled down other barriers and went to the extent of extending marriage rights to those in prison. Governments mainly as a way of distributing resources to dependents used marriage licenses. Hospitals made the license a mandatory requirement before a partner could access the medical information of the better half. The courts also used the marriage licenses as a requirement before allowing the partners to inherit property belonging to their deceased partners. For these reasons single parenthood and cohabitation were very rare occurrences. However in the present era a marriage license does not tell much about the interpersonal responsibilities between different people. According to Archuleta (2011) half of the Americans with ages between 25 and 29 are classified as unmarried despite the fact that many of them have already incurred obligation as either parents or partners. Further findings show that nearly 40% of the American children are born of unmarried parents. In conclusion it is impractical for governments to use marriage licenses as a way of protecting interpersonal responsibilities. The society has been turned into a place where children receive inheritance even if the parents are not marred. Similarly people receive legal standings and parental support even without the existence of a marriage license. This license thus cannot be used to decide on what rights and adult obligation deserve to be protected by the state. The church therefore needs to be entrusted with the responsibility of deciding the licit and the illicit marriages. References Top of Form Archuleta R. C. (2011). Illicit american: A true story about the smuggling of human cargo. S.l.: Authorhouse. Bottom of Form
