Mar 142010
 

Today when we consider marriage we think of it as an official ceremony performed by a representative of church or state; without their sanction, no “marriage” can be called such. It wasn’t always quite like that. Given the pressure to legalise marriage between two people of the same sex (apparently a “civil partnership” isn’t quite enough), it may come as a surprise that it is entirely possible that there have been single sex marriages in the past.

The idea of marriage being a ceremony conducted by an official (a priest or state official) is actually relatively modern. It was not until the Council of Trent in the 16th century, that the church insisted that marriage could only be performed by a priest. Whilst the church had laws governing marriage, the ceremony itself was a private one between two individuals. This would often be followed by the priest blessing the marriage, but that was a separate ceremony.

If you look at genuine early English churches (many of those old looking churches in sleepy villages are in fact 19th century), you will notice that many have quite large porches. There are various reasons for this, but principally it was a convenient place for conducting business that either didn’t require the whole church, or did not have any business in the church. And marriages were often conducted in this porch before the wedding party would enter the church for the priest to bless the marriage.

Now in almost all circumstances, the marriage would be conducted in this way; in public with a notice published on the door of the church some time in advance for people to object to the marriage if there were suitable grounds. But there was nothing to stop anyone from having a private (and probably illegal) marriage in their own way. It was even accepted by the church that merely saying the phrase “I marry you” was enough to constitute a marriage – effectively a common law marriage which was abolished in 1753. Such a marriage may not have been accepted by secular law, but would as far as the church was concerned been a marriage.

This would seem to indicate that marriage was originally a personal commitment between two people with nobody in authority sanctioning it. And only concerns over property rights and the urge that all authorities have to regulate everything changed that. Property? Of course to the rich, the effect of marriage on property ownership was exceptionally important – enough that many marriages were arranged principally to ensure that property ownership was preserved in some way.

So we know that many marriages in the past were arranged marriages conducted for merging property holdings ? Well there is plenty of evidence that the rich conducted marriage in such a way, but there is little to say that the vast majority who were poor also did so. Why arrange a marriage for property when neither partner owns any land ?

Of course there was also a tendency to pick a future partner for possible future earning power rather than for love. However we simply do not know enough about marriages in the past to say that love marriages did not exist.

But enough of the past. What about the present ? Is it not time to tell governments everywhere to keep out of our private business and take back ownership of marriage ? It is no business of government or any other authority to tell individuals whom they can or cannot marry. Sure, there are plenty of reasons why marriage should be registered with the government, but why do they insist the ceremony must take place in front of an appropriate official ?

The instant you allow private marriages, you solve so many problems that it is plainly (to me) an obvious thing to do :-

  • No nutters with an axe to grind can stop single-sex couples getting married, or impose any form of lesser marriage.
  • Private marriages mean you can get married anywhere – if I were to get married, my choice of spot would be on a hill north of Arundel overlooking Amberley mount. Not the kind of place that would normally be allowed by the government but why should they have a say on where I get married ?
  • It allows for marriages to be much cheaper. According to a quick search the average cost of getting married in the UK in 2006 (so it’ll have gone up since) is £25,000 – which is plainly ridiculous. Anyone can understand wanting an unforgettable day for a marriage, but surely it can be done for cheaper than this ? At this cost, many people put off getting married either because they just can’t afford it, or because they have better things to spend the money on – like putting down a deposit on a house!
Mar 102010
 

If you are unlucky enough to catch our representatives in parliament during Prime Minister’s questions (Wednesday lunchtimes), you are probably aware of the MPs making loud noises during the questions and answers. When a new election looms, the noise gets louder to the point that many ordinary MPs find it difficult to ask their questions and any answers become difficult to hear.

Personally I’m of the belief that shouting and screaming whilst someone else is trying to speak is impolite in the extreme; the MPs come across as a bunch of loud-mouthed louts who would rather shout down an opponent than actually take part in an intelligent debate. In other words the kind of yob that would be thrown out of any decent debating society for disruptive behaviour.

It is quite possible that their behaviour is a great deal better in ordinary debates, but we do not see those as often as we see PM’s questions. Part of the image problem that MPs have is probably down to this loutish behaviour.

The Speaker of the House is supposed to keep control and stop the worst excesses of this sort of behaviour, but he fails to do so properly – simply because he isn’t prepared to exclude the noisiest members for their behaviour. Perhaps it is about time he did ?

Mar 072010
 

We have learned over the last week that one of the killers of James Bulger, Jon Venables has had his license revoked, and is now back in prison. Of course there has been frantic speculation in the media about the reason for this, varying from drunkenness to a fight at work. It is of course worth pointing out that someone released on license from prison most commonly from a life sentence, is not free in the ordinary sense of the word as they can be re-imprisoned at the drop of a hat.

However this weekend, the real reason has slowly slipped out thanks to the circulation wars between newspapers. First he was accused of a “serious sexual crime” and now he has apparently been accused of some kind of child pornography offence. Of course we do not actually know that he is accused of this; we merely have a newspaper claiming it is so.

And a very irresponsible claim it is too – the newspaper editors involved obviously think that the popularity of their newspapers is more important than the safety of Jon Venables or the safety of anybody accused of child pornography offences. Plus of course it risks prejudicing those who might be called to act as a jury in their trial.

But who cares if Jon Venables gets a fair trial ? Or some child pornographer gets knifed in prison awaiting trial ?

Well in the later case, you could find yourself in prison awaiting trial on child pornography charges merely for letting your Windows machine get infected with a virus! The technical details of this are not of much interest here, but rest assured that if you let your machine get infected, those who control the virus can use your computer for whatever they want, which does include storing a stash of child porn. As certain unfortunate individuals have found to their cost.

Does Jon Venables deserve to be lynched for what he has done ? Well before we answer that, which crime are we talking about ? His childhood killing of James Bulger ? Or for his alleged crime of looking at child porn ? Well there are plenty who say he deserves it for his earlier crime, but he has been punished for that – perhaps you do not agree that the punishment is sufficient, but he has been punished and the punishment is probably more severe than most people realise.

He isn’t free. Don’t forget that.

He may be able to walk the streets and work for his living, but he isn’t free.

Being released on license means that he can be snatched back into prison on the flimsiest of pretexts – getting a little too involved in alcohol, perhaps getting into a fight, or even his parole officer doesn’t like his state of mind.

So he doesn’t deserve any additional punishment for his killing of James Bulger. Don’t forget that killing him would simply end his punishment; letting him live lets the punishment go on and on.

As for the alleged child pornography charge, he’s innocent of that and he will be until such time as a jury finds him guilty. And if he is found guilty ? If that happens he should be punished according to the law with no harsher or more lenient sentence than anyone else in the same circumstances. Which doesn’t include lynching.

Perhaps you do not agree, but you could well agree that the media is responsible for releasing enough details about Jon Venables to make it a little easier for those who want to kill him. It may also be enough to make it difficult for any trial of Jon Venables to be fair – every jury looking at a child pornography case may well wonder if the accused is Jon; in fact there could be any number of possibly unfair trials due to come up.

Is this right ? Does the public right to know or the public interest include possibly putting someone’s life at risk ? Or indeed risking an innocent person (and not necessarily Jon Venables) from being convicted of possessing child pornography ?

Under US law, there is the concept of ‘reckless endangerment’ whereby anyone who puts another at risk of harm is subject to possible prosecution. To me that sounds an awful lot like what the British media is currently doing to Jon Venables. I certainly believe that what they are doing is potentially dangerous not only to Jon Venables, but to others too – who can forget the Portsmouth residents trying to lynch an innocent person because he had the same name as a paedophile?

For nothing more than increased circulation, the newspapers are cynically willing to put someone’s life at risk. Perhaps we need an equivalent of “reckless endangerment” and stick a few editors behind bars to put across the point that someone’s life is worth more than any amount of money.

Mar 062010
 

I have just seen a news item on TV about what the pundits think the effect of social media (Twitter, Facebook and the like) will have on the upcoming UK election. The general consensus was that it probably will not make much difference, and I’m not going to disagree.

What was amusing though was that they seemed to have concentrated in what the politicians might say in their tweets or on their Facebook pages – missing the point of social networking entirely. Most of us do not pay much attention to what politicians say online on various social media sites; we stick to what our usual contacts say. It is what they say that may influence how we vote in elections.

Of course just like “water cooler debates”, it will not have a great influence over how we vote – it is just one more piece of information.

Feb 272010
 

One of the great things about OpenSolaris is that the archaic packaging tools have been replaced with something that looks like it may be a little better; one of the disadvantages is that trying to install packages from something like OpenCSW is a little awkward when the first command fails.

Given that I’ve just to hunt around for the details a second time, it is worth working up the basics into something that can be added here. Firstly we need to install the commands necessary to support the old packages :-

pkg install SUNWpkgcmds
pkg install SUNWwget

Now that has been done, it should be possible to install the OpenCSW package command using pkgadd :-

pkgadd -d http://www.opencsw.org/pkg_get.pkg