[djf]

Indeed I do not think the Bible makes a ceremony mandatory.

These are not new questions at all. The reason is that questions about rights of married persons and hereditary rights of their children probably pre-date any recorded history.

I’ve read entries about marriage in many of the legal dictionaries and NONE of them say a ceremony is required. In fact, a ceremony can be performed, but in most cases the marriage STILL does not exist until it is consummated.

Here are a few of the things that courts might look at:

Are they living together as man and wife?
Have they made an open declaration of their intent to marry?
Have they consummated the union?
Are there offspring involved?
Has she taken his name or he taken her name?
Have they, as a couple, acquired property in both their names?

Now once again none of the above taken by itself is considered conclusive. But these ideas and this same concept is recognized in every society that exists or has ever existed worldwide.

Anderson’s Dictionary of Law calls it the oldest and most important transaction in life, the basis of the fabric of all civilized society.

NONE of the law dictionary entries I have ever read define marriage as being anything else than a relation between a man and a woman, who openly chose to and consent to a perpetual union.

[Mrs. Don-o]

djf, I wanted to comment on the topic you brought up, about a definition of marriage. I'm not quite sure I've gotten this quite right from a Catholic point of view (which is the point of view I want to develop) -- so if somebody I've pinged wants to jump in and correct me, I'll appreciate it.

As I understand it, there are two basic legitimate kinds of marriage, and they are Natural Marriage, and Sacramental Marriage (Matrimony).

Natural marriage is something every known society recognizes, in every century and in every culture, whether it is religious or not, whether there are legal regulations or not, and is rooted in Natural Law. This means, it's what we know is best for human flourishing. Natural marriage involves the realization that

• Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman (the procreative act) establishes a bond between them, and a responsibility to their offspring.
• Such a bond should be durable and based on consent.
• This consent involves a commitment to provide for each others' well-being, and that of their children.
• The consent is public in nature.

This is regarded as a natural good, even if there are no further legal, ceremonial, or theological implications.

Then there's Sacramental Marriage (Matrimony), which is like Natural Marriage but taken to a higher level. Matrimony includes all of the above points, plus:

• The husband and wife are both Baptized Christians;
• The marriage is monogamous
• the bond is permanent (until the death of one of the spouses);
• Its ultimate goal is the eternal and supreme joy of heaven, which is what the spouses want for each other, and for their children.
• Ordinarily it involves a priestly blessing and two witnesses, but that's not what makes it valid. Nor does "a ceeremony" make it valid. What makes it valid is the consent of the man and the woman, and the act of sexual intercourse, defined as, sexual union of the procreative type.

I don't think the Church gives a hoot about legality in the secular sense. There was a time when the Church was against civil (secular) marriage --- licensing by the State --- because neither Natural Marriage nor the Sacrament of Matrimony need licensing by the State in order to exist.

To put that a different way: the State can (and should) acnowledge marriage as an institution; but the State is not the source of marriage, cannot define (or redefine) marriage, and must not degrade or impede marriage, because marriage is the more fundamental institution. Marriage is prior to the State, more essential to human well-being than the State, and could even be said to be superior to the State.

Is that 'bout right?