JMT Sunday December 31, 2006

"Love and Marriage"

Hey folks,

OK, I have a problem. Normally, I do not care. Normally it doesn’t matter. But when you are talking about a Wedding Ring, to some it’s a big deal. What am I talking about? Love and marriage, symbolism, ownership, and everything else that goes with it.

An old friend of mine always said, "Marriage is a great institution, as long as you like living in institutions." Well, so far I’m loving this institution. I have a wonderful Wife, friend, lover, one that takes very good care of me. We have a son. We are happy. We know we are married. It’s documented. Everyone I know, knows I’m married.

This does not seem to be enough for some. I’m asked often, "Why do you know where a wedding ring?" I try to explain to them, the simple answer is I can’t. I cannot where ANY jewelry. If I try to wear a watch, I kill it. I literally burn a hole through the back of it, and it, burns me. Necklace? Nope. Gold, silver, ETC, turn on me. They turn my skin green, along with times, blistering occurs. So rings? Just cannot wear them. Has something to do with the acid level in my body.

But this got me curious. Just wondered, where did the Wedding Ring start anyway? Well, I found this interesting.

"As chance has it, the oldest recorded exchange of wedding rings comes from ancient Egypt, about 4800 years ago.

In early Egypt, the ring was linked with the supernatural, a never-ending band linked with eternal love. For the Romans later, the ring's acceptance by a young lady was a binding, legal agreement and the girl was no longer free. Today we accept the ring as part of a religious ceremony when we marry in church.
Modern wedding traditions.

As time passes traditions change and, today, it is not only the brides who wear rings as a symbol of their lasting affection, but the majority of men also choose to wear this badge of fidelity and commitment.

The ring's band does not have to be gold. In early Roman times they used iron, for its symbolic strength. But that has been replaced in the third century with silver and gold because of its beauty while iron rusts. There are attractive alternatives for yellow gold, such as Silver or Electrum. You can also think about the hardness of the metal and the color of your wedding band.

Wear wedding ring left or right hand.

Most people wear the wedding band on the left hand. However, some European women wear the ring on their right hand. Some Scandinavian women wear three rings, one each for

engagement
marriage
Motherhood.

Jewish brides have the ring placed on their index finger, since that is the finger with which they point to the Torah as they read."

Wedding Thimbles.

Puritans refused to wear wedding rings because they considered jewelry frivolous, yet in Colonial times, couples exchanged "wedding thimbles" - a useful and practical gift, and therefore acceptable - but after the wedding they often cut off the bottoms thereby creating rings. Whatever the culture, whatever the century, people have recognized the importance of sealing their unions with rings.

But why the third finger of the left hand?

There are many theories as to why this particular finger came to symbolize marriage. Both the ancient Romans and Egyptians believed that a vein - called the vena amoris in Latin - ran directly from that finger to the heart.

In medieval England, a bridegroom would slide the ring part way up his bride's thumb, index and middle finger, saying "In the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost" as he passed each one. He then put the ring on the next available finger - the third finger of the left hand. This practice was finally formalized in the 1500's when Henry VIII's son authored The Book of Common Prayer, which gives English modern Protestant wedding vows and decrees on which finger our wedding rings should go.

Do men wear wedding rings?

The practice of men wearing wedding rings is relatively new. Up until the middle of the twentieth century, it was mostly only women who wore wedding rings, perhaps a reminder of the days when women were regarded as property, or perhaps a harmless custom akin to women wearing engagement rings that their husbands do not. When World War Two broke out and many young men faced lengthy separations from their wives, men began wearing wedding bands as a symbol of their marriages and a reminder of their wives.

It was pure romance, a gesture of love and affection that has happily survived into modern times. The vast majority of men wear wedding bands these days.

Then I found this,

"It was not until about 860 that the Christians used the ring in marriage ceremonies, and then it was not the plain circlet that we now use, but a highly decorated device, engraved with symbolical figures of doves, lyres and even of two linked hands. Such a "Heathenish" gadget was not given a hearty reception by the Church, and for a long time its use was discouraged, though never completely abandoned."

Now we know that marriage itself has been around for a LONG time. As a matter of fact, God said to Adam,

24 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Genesis 2-24

People use to stand before God and say, "I take you as my Wife, and the woman to the man, my Husband," and they were married. Sometimes the Church was involved in making it "official", but for the most part, people meant what they said, and did what they said. Then from what I can see, it appears that Government got involved in 1754 with the "Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1754"

"The legal and social implications of Hardwicke's Marriage Act, passed in 1753, were of the utmost importance in England. From 1754 onwards a marriage, in order to be recognized as legal, had to be carried out in a very specific, circumscribed manner, ending a period during which "irregular" or clandestine marriages proliferated. Although Lord Hardwicke had been agitating for such legislation for years, it was one case in particular, a Scottish action, which had been appealed to the House of Lords, that precipitated the Act.

The case was heard by the House of Lords in January 1753, after which the Lords went on to order "That the Judges do prepare and bring in a Bill, for the better preventing of Clandestine Marriages." Three recent publications mention this case. According to Outhwaite, "a marriage of thirty years standing, celebrated legally, was challenged on the grounds of a prior secret contract." Stone writes that "after the man's death, his thirty-year marriage had been declared null, leaving his widow penniless and their child bastardised, thanks to the successful claim by another woman of a clandestine pre-contract." Both these writers use the Journal of the House of Lords as source material. Bannet, the third, citing Cobbett's Parliamentary History, writes that "the case which was said to have led to the Marriage Bill of 1753 ... involved a 'clandestine marriage set up after a man's death which was never heard of in his lifetime.' The fact that the woman who thought herself his widow had actually lived with him publicly as his wife for many years was set aside by the true or trumped up evidence of his pre-contract to another woman.""

So basically it was meant as proof and protection of the spouses? As you can see, marriage pretty much from the beginning, rings from about 4800 years ago, and government only since about 1754.

In the 20th century, however, government has intruded upon the marriage contract, among many others. Each state has tended to promulgate a standard, one-size-fits-all formula. Then, in the past generation, legislatures and courts have started unilaterally changing the terms of the marriage contract. Between 1969 and 1985 all the states provided for no-fault divorce. The new arrangements applied not just to couples embarking on matrimony but also to couples who had married under an earlier set of rules. Many people felt a sense of liberation; the changes allowed them to get out of unpleasant marriages without the often contrived allegations of fault previously required for divorce.

Divorce has been on the rise ever since. The sad fact of the matter is this, most people NOW go into marriage thinking that this is their "first." If it doesn’t work out, no big deal, we will just get lawyers and go before a judge and get a divorce.

So for all those that are concerned as to why I or many others, do not wear wedding rings, I ask you this. Which do you feel to be more important, the symbolism, or the actual act of marriage itself?
Peter

Sources,
Atlantisring.com= "History of the Wedding Ring"
Origins of the Wedding Ring
Law and History Review