526车祸的处置过程可能略微搞笑了一点，但是笑点绝对是深圳人民，乃至全国人民。
出车祸开始，各种祭奠。犯罪嫌疑人来自首，各种讨伐，直到最后强力证据推出，大家才终于消停。南都深圳读本质疑警方办事不利，“证据像挤牙膏一样慢慢出现，倘若民众不质疑，警方是否会真的出示这么多证据？”
以我在法院实习那几个月的草草经历来说，确实不会出示这么多证据，但是案子也绝对办的毫无纰漏。而不出示证据的原因，一方面在司法机构，更多的则在于每一个民众。
法院办案也要考虑效益的。这句话挺起来很恐怖，觉得效益就牺牲了公平正义一样，如同听到“人民应当允许适当的腐败”一般非常的荒唐。但是冷静的想一想，这句话又没出任何错误。法院的效益决定于案子的难度，案子带来的社会效益有多大。倘若是一起盗窃案，嫌烦在便利店偷了两包方便面一瓶绿茶，之后逃之夭夭，即便监控摄像记录下了嫌犯的长相，即便嫌犯可能就在附近居住，难道说我们就要排五个民警日夜蹲守在便利店的小区附近抓捕盗窃犯，然后依照治安处罚条例要他赔礼道歉并赔偿损失么？想来确实是不合理的。其实还有更多更多的案例属于这种范畴，例如丢失自行车一辆，警方是否会日夜蹲守甚至到二手自行车市场去排查失窃车辆，这些想一想都知道的。而不仅是中国，在英国也是一样，没有任何司法力量办案时候是不考虑效益的（那个日本人丢的自行车确实奇特，可以自己去搜图片看，加上我国特殊的外交政策以及对国家形象的尊重，很快就成功追回并不出奇。我并不赞同我国的国策，但是我更不赞同任何人对警察，检察院和法院的诋毁）。
有的人又要问了，那么公平正义的价值何在？抓住一个小偷挽救了公平正义的颜面，那不是更重要么？其实关于这个问题，我其实不必过多解释，读者只消自己问问自己的内心，公平正义价值几何？论小事，你上班不偷懒么？你坐车不逃票么？你排队不加塞么？你在地上捡了钱会充公或者寻找失主么？往大了想，你在与政府职能部门（甚至于一个医生）打交道的时候不考虑行贿么？不考虑走后门的好处么？就连跟公司同部门的人都请客吃饭“搞好关系”的你们，又有什么基础说自己重视公平正义的价值呢？或许可以争论说，公务员就是为大家办事的，对他们来说公平正义应该是更重要的。那么读过大学的同学们，你们毕业时候考虑过考公务员么？你们考公务员的时候，是因为公平正义的良心驱使你去考，还是为了那份稳定的工作和福利待遇去考？你入党的时候，是为了考验你的忠诚，还是为了拿你的忠诚交换仕途？你可以批评公务员的生活安逸，甚至说福利特别高，可是你真的知道这些钱主要流向么？我在法院的时候是午餐免费，吃的特好，可是是政府花钱从外面请来的厨师做的饭，不知道养活了多少家餐厅，提供了多少岗位。使用的电脑就是神舟提供给家电下乡的产品，所有设备除了复印机以外都是国产的，这些东西是高于市场价买入的，可是这都是无形补贴的一部分，如果不是这些补贴，那些生产廉价商品的工厂不会这么有竞争力，也不可能乐呵呵的生产这些廉价的家电设备让你们都买得起便宜的冰箱，电脑，电视。总而言之大部分的所谓政府采购的浪费，其实都在构成一种无形的政府补贴，提供给了私人生产商（在WTO有无数案件因此而起，欧盟和美国日本一致认为这种政府采购是在利用WTO法律的漏洞为本国生产商提供补贴以增强竞争力）。有人说这里面有黑幕，那是因为他们被黑了，他们没拿到好处。也有人说这种经济体制不好，养了一群好吃懒做得人，但是每一个自由市场经济的国家都在做这种事情，有什么证据说明这么做会对国家经济不好呢？
这些问题的答案如果都没法让你停止追寻，那么我来仔细解释一下为了提供这么多资料，深圳警方要付出多大的代价。
撞车了，人作鸟兽散，但是可以说是非常好锁定嫌疑人的。车有登记，一路上有监控，车主有手机，伤员在车里必然留下证物（除了被烧毁的BYD以外，证物提取困难）。而一开始事情其实非常简单，撞车了司机来自首了，讲明了实际情况，案子结了。但是本来是检察院对嫌疑人的一场诉讼，变成了人民对检察院的诉讼。这确实是一个悲哀，公信力的悲哀（我并不否认政府公信力问题，但如同上文所述，也是人民养成的，甚至是人民直接导致的，想想你在政府里工作的亲人，你的朋友，同学们吧），但是从另一个角度也成功的强迫检察院督促警察寻找更多证据。
这些证据的寻找其实并不是很容易的，在正常情况下因为效益的问题（如上文提出的，在无争议无疑点的情况下）是不会去主动寻找的。证据包括在车上寻找血样进行DNA检测，这是简单直观的，但是往往又是非常耗时耗钱的。常看美剧的同学们可能已经习惯了“从犯罪现场提取的DNA样本指向犯罪嫌疑人”这种说法，可是你知道一个现场能提取的血液样本足有上百个，一个一个去做检测都是要钱的。如果觉得这个钱无所谓，那读者可以去司法鉴定所申请亲子鉴定看看这要多少钱吧。其实从车内物品就很容易判断车辆属于谁了，但是估计是因为这种证据不够硬，警方也没考虑用这种东西说服民众。就像嫌疑人死亡之后身上的尸斑是很难向普通人解释这不是殴打的痕迹的（摄像头的过曝保护黑斑就是另一个很典型的例子，民众不专业，加上公信力扫地，造成了这种奇葩的质疑声）。
其次就是摄像头。深圳主干道上确实很多摄像头，看似证据满满，可是问题就是摄像头的数量太多。当时车速非常快，出现在同一个摄像头中可能也就是几秒的时间，而为了这几秒的时间，民警进行排查的时候恐怕就要耗费数小时的时间，因为本身车祸发生时间就无法准确确定，外加摄像头内置的时钟和标准时可能有差距，这就不知道要消耗多少工时才能找出车子一路而过的影像。理论上说摄像头的覆盖面确实是可以拍到嫌疑人上车一路到撞车为止的，但是为了找出这些记录恐怕是几个月的事情了。在律师进行诉讼的时候一种隐藏证据的方法就是把有力分散在十几箱证据文件中，让对方律师无法在开庭前阅读到。深圳警方也是被淹没在这种证据洪水中了。而实际上，摄像头的数量也是值得商榷的，因为主干道上很多的摄像头其实是用来抓拍超速闯红灯的，这些摄像头只在特定情况下才会被激活。所以实际情况下，并不是司机在路上摸奶摄像头都看得到，而只是碰巧当时被人看到所以才得以流出那张摸奶照而已。今天警方居然成功的公布了驾车的照片，可想而知花费了多大的时间来寻找证据（警方公布共1000小时）。政府的摄像头算是维护的比较好的了，商户的摄像头就更是让人无奈的了。
我父亲的一个朋友就是做摄像头生意的，他们同时卖另一种东西，假摄像头，就是一个空壳子，看起来像摄像头，没事也转一转，但是其实是起震慑作用的。开店的朋友们恐怕心知肚明，他们的摄像头就算是真的，也根本就没人监控，摄像头的系统时间和标准时间相差一天都有可能。而调取摄像头资料又是一个相当麻烦的过程，我亲自去网吧调取过一次视频资料，总共花了一整天的时间才找到我要的那个时段，而资料数量又极其庞大，装满了整个移动硬盘，回来看了一遍一点意义都没有，模糊不堪。深圳的露天酒吧的摄像头素质恐怕不一定会好过网吧这些地方。不过勤劳的深圳警方依然找齐了酒吧资料，以及游艇会的资料。是一件值得表扬的事情。而事后大家又一窝蜂的去质疑摄像头的黑斑，认为那是后期制作的结果。我也大言不惭的去质疑了一下，因为我当时只看到了一个长约三秒的GIF截图，不得不说，这个GIF是极其具有误导性的。不过也对自己的不专业表示相当惭愧。
最后大家也提及了手机通话记录。提取通话记录确实是简单的一件事情，假设我们不去质疑手机号码的所有者是否是侯某，找出这个号码何时打过什么电话，通话时间多长，是非常简单的事情，可是又能证明什么呢？就因为肇事者在事后打过一个电话并不能就此去对接电话的人进行一番调查的（例如去追究许某当时的所在地仅因为通话记录显示了许某的号码），这跟诛九族有什么区别？而通话内容更是无从可考，除非双方有一方是极其重要的人物才会被录音（极其重要的人物是指，这个名字几乎每周都会在报纸上出现，或者相类似的人物）。而更有人说找出通话时手机的地址，这就更像是个笑话一样。我在中国移动打零工的时候，曾碰到过人到营业厅里行色慌忙的要求我们锁定他的电话，做定位。就算当时来的是执法部门带着公文来的，我们可以帮他定位，但是也需要一个小时左右的时间，定位精度大约五公里（如果他在某栋大楼中，或者停车场中，运气好点可能精度可能有一公里。而去翻查一个过往的通话记录来源于哪个基站，一来时间非常之长非常繁琐，绝对不是在办公室里点点鼠标就能搞定的事情，更何况精度下降到20公里左右（因为没有三角基站定位的能力了），对于本案又有什么帮助呢？
因此我认为深圳警方本次执法过程并不应该引发如此大的争议。争议真正的来源在于富人，跑车，以及最初医生的证词等。关于富人，跑车，恐怕是另一敏感词，情而可原，就像大家看到女大学生这个词就有不好的联想一样。而我只看过医生对病人的形容，并没看到医生否认侯某是前来就诊的人这句话。而更可笑的事，就连我本人都无法认出网上流传的许某照片（那张从上往下拍之后又光影魔术手美化过的春风得意美少年），和后来公布的徐某在警察协助下接受采访的照片（简直就是个土肥圆）。亲爱的姑娘们，我能凭借你在人人或者微博里上传的照片，在人群中认出你么？恐怕困难。那徐某的照片长得不像本人又有什么问题呢？就算当时来就医的是许某，恐怕医生也认不出来吧。
最后的最后，我并不是说我们的公检法以后都可以以这种态度办案，公检法确实是应该向这个案子学习（当然，可别马上就开了一个“526特大交通事故案件表彰大会”什么的，虽然你们成功的赶制了发布会的条幅）。但是更多的转变是什么呢？就如一开头提到的，办案以效益为推动力确实是一个不可能改变的事情，我们能改变的就是让公平正义的地位更加重要。谁去改变，每个人，你们自己。
假设一下，如果死的人不是两个有微博的大学毕业后在深圳工作的有前途的漂亮青年女性，而是一个骑自行车的外地打工者，或者仅仅是死了两个司机，你们这些在微博上转发的人们，还会为了他们而伤心，还会继续追究这件事情么？只是因为这次死的人跟自己太像了，才让你们感到了危险，才让你们开始关注，而死去的司机，你们又怎么想的呢？有传闻BYD司机成功逃出又返回营救两个乘客（抱歉我绝对不会说他们是少女的，这简直就是对司机的一种歧视），这种传闻虽然很不靠谱，但是并不扯蛋，因为司机受到了太多的忽视和轻蔑。倘若BYD的司机不是被烧死了，恐怕整个事件他连个数字都不会出现。现在他也仅作为3个死者中的一个分母而已，驾驶另一辆出租车的司机连分母都没当成。而与侯某同车的三名女性也得到了莫名其妙的关注，大家关注的重点恐怕根本就不是什么社会公平正义，而像是看记者捉奸一样去围观同是车祸伤者妖艳女子。殊不知这三个个女人不过是恰巧坐在跑车上受了伤，大家都忘了他们也完全有可能坐在出租车里被撞死。如果事件发生的早在一些，在这三个女子坐出租车去酒吧的路上被撞，她们身上的关注就完全的逆转了，他们就变成了彻彻底底的受害者。而，这样对么？
一句话结尾：当初他们（纳粹）杀共产党，我没有作声，因为我不是共产党；后来他们杀犹太人，我没有作声，因为我不是犹太人；再接下来他们杀天主教徒，我仍然保持沉默，因为我不是天主教徒；最后，当他们开始对付我时，已经没有人为我讲话了……
但是这句话应该改变一些，就是他们后面的括号里，写的不是纳粹，而是我们自己的良心。别忘了所有的事情都与你有关，公平与正义，你不追究，就没有任何人追究了。如果还有良心，别忘了还活着的司机以及死去死机的家人，别忘了BYD那操蛋的质量，更别忘了侯某和那三个女人，即便作为肇事者，也是另一个活生生的人，也是值得尊重的，也不是可以随随便便拉到电视机面前脱掉上衣展示的。
2012年6月1日星期五
2012年5月19日星期六
这将是一个坑害屌丝和黑木耳的研究
课题名称：
不同性别对微信‘摇一摇’，‘寻找附近的人’，陌陌，手机QQ‘寻找附近的用户’功能在认知上的区别
简介：
这将是一个坑害屌丝和黑木耳的研究（也可能误伤女屌丝和土肥圆）。这是一个完完全全报复社会的行为，请大家小心。
如此惨无人道的想法 是在一次喝酒的时候，五个大老爷们摇一摇+陌陌居然连个喝酒的人都没叫出来引发的。女人们，你们摇一摇是在锻炼臂力呢，还是在确认你不是唯一的人类？
本人将致力于此项研究，将所有睡不着觉等不着公交车拉不出屎的时间用于手机实验数据。
本实验将通过微信，QQ，陌陌等地理信息交友工具随机寻找朋友，通过观察不同状态下男性及女性实验对象对实验环境的反应而得出结论。
本实验受限于时间，时差，地域，网络效率以及运气的影响。同时样本率将非常低，保守估计无法达到十万分之一，研究结果可靠性有待商榷。另外猜测腾讯在进行会员配对的时候偏向于异性配对，因此同性之间的成功率可能极低。
文献回顾：
情感专著《男人来自火星，女人来自金星》中认为男人和女人是不同的，情感的表达方式也是不同的。于是具体到对地理信息交友软件的认知，使用和感情表达方式也是不同的。从经验角度得知在使用时男性倾向于主动而女性倾向于被动，甚至把手机当做哑铃不断的摇动但是从不发言。（或许在做某种臂力锻炼，需要手臂不断上下的那种？）
研究方法：
通过不同实验环境，测试男女用户的反应。采样方法为简单随机，采样率约为十万分之一。
实验环境设定为单一变量法。
主变量为性别，辅助为行为。主变量性别分为四大类，高富帅，屌丝，女神，黑木耳。鉴于女屌丝可以被涵盖在女神和黑木耳之中，而土肥圆几乎没有被搭讪的可能，故不参与讨论以降低研究成本。
辅助变量包含签名内容和是否打招呼。
签名内容可分为拒绝搭讪，空，有一定含义可以被搭上话的小清新，或者具有挑逗暗示性语言。打招呼可分为不打招呼，简单打招呼，打招呼并有挑逗暗示性语言。
为避免被举报，挑逗暗示性语言可能仅限为‘你很美’之类无力的话语。
研究结果将发布在本网站，以及学术网站Berlyne.info上。感谢关注。
预祝研究顺利！
不同性别对微信‘摇一摇’，‘寻找附近的人’，陌陌，手机QQ‘寻找附近的用户’功能在认知上的区别
简介：
这将是一个坑害屌丝和黑木耳的研究（也可能误伤女屌丝和土肥圆）。这是一个完完全全报复社会的行为，请大家小心。
如此惨无人道的想法 是在一次喝酒的时候，五个大老爷们摇一摇+陌陌居然连个喝酒的人都没叫出来引发的。女人们，你们摇一摇是在锻炼臂力呢，还是在确认你不是唯一的人类？
本人将致力于此项研究，将所有睡不着觉等不着公交车拉不出屎的时间用于手机实验数据。
本实验将通过微信，QQ，陌陌等地理信息交友工具随机寻找朋友，通过观察不同状态下男性及女性实验对象对实验环境的反应而得出结论。
本实验受限于时间，时差，地域，网络效率以及运气的影响。同时样本率将非常低，保守估计无法达到十万分之一，研究结果可靠性有待商榷。另外猜测腾讯在进行会员配对的时候偏向于异性配对，因此同性之间的成功率可能极低。
文献回顾：
情感专著《男人来自火星，女人来自金星》中认为男人和女人是不同的，情感的表达方式也是不同的。于是具体到对地理信息交友软件的认知，使用和感情表达方式也是不同的。从经验角度得知在使用时男性倾向于主动而女性倾向于被动，甚至把手机当做哑铃不断的摇动但是从不发言。（或许在做某种臂力锻炼，需要手臂不断上下的那种？）
研究方法：
通过不同实验环境，测试男女用户的反应。采样方法为简单随机，采样率约为十万分之一。
实验环境设定为单一变量法。
主变量为性别，辅助为行为。主变量性别分为四大类，高富帅，屌丝，女神，黑木耳。鉴于女屌丝可以被涵盖在女神和黑木耳之中，而土肥圆几乎没有被搭讪的可能，故不参与讨论以降低研究成本。
辅助变量包含签名内容和是否打招呼。
签名内容可分为拒绝搭讪，空，有一定含义可以被搭上话的小清新，或者具有挑逗暗示性语言。打招呼可分为不打招呼，简单打招呼，打招呼并有挑逗暗示性语言。
为避免被举报，挑逗暗示性语言可能仅限为‘你很美’之类无力的话语。
研究结果将发布在本网站，以及学术网站Berlyne.info上。感谢关注。
预祝研究顺利！
2012年4月20日星期五
some thoughts about the tibet
it is only a thought during my essay writing process.
it is adopted when a facebook friend asked me 'do you think korea shall be part of china just like tibet'.
followed is my answer on facebook.
well
ur question.
really hard to answer.
if, korea can be part of china, based on what? the culture link? then, japan shall be part of china first~
so i guess i will support that, where we control, where they belong to
about the right of referendum, it depends on the constitution of the state at issue
its not part of nature rights.
for instance, USA stated referendum can only based on national wide level, not state level.
china took the same approach.
where in the uk, where i am, its the national level also, but not kingdom level. so, scotland can start a referendum as a nation. (yes we can scotland a nation).
above is my idea abt if korea can be part of china and why its different from tibet.
so i guess i will support that, where we control, where they
belong to
about the right of referendum, it depends on the constitution of the state at issue
its not part of nature rights.
for instance, USA stated referendum can only based on national wide level, not state level.
china took the same approach.
where in the uk, where i am, its the national level also, but not kingdom level. so, scotland can start a referendum as a nation. (yes we can scotland a nation).
above is my idea abt if korea can be part of china and why its different from tibet.
it is adopted when a facebook friend asked me 'do you think korea shall be part of china just like tibet'.
followed is my answer on facebook.
well
ur question.
really hard to answer.
if, korea can be part of china, based on what? the culture link? then, japan shall be part of china first~
so i guess i will support that, where we control, where they belong to
about the right of referendum, it depends on the constitution of the state at issue
its not part of nature rights.
for instance, USA stated referendum can only based on national wide level, not state level.
china took the same approach.
where in the uk, where i am, its the national level also, but not kingdom level. so, scotland can start a referendum as a nation. (yes we can scotland a nation).
above is my idea abt if korea can be part of china and why its different from tibet.
so i guess i will support that, where we control, where they
belong to
about the right of referendum, it depends on the constitution of the state at issue
its not part of nature rights.
for instance, USA stated referendum can only based on national wide level, not state level.
china took the same approach.
where in the uk, where i am, its the national level also, but not kingdom level. so, scotland can start a referendum as a nation. (yes we can scotland a nation).
above is my idea abt if korea can be part of china and why its different from tibet.
2012年3月14日星期三
翻译作品 | BBC 婚姻历史上的十个重要时刻
原文 Ten key moments in the history of marriage
作者 Lauren Everitt
来源 BBC News Magazine
依据中国相关法律法规，在原作品无版权声明不可使用的情况下，翻译作品无需事先取得版权所有人同意。
According to Chinese law, translation of origin
works does not need permission of the origin owner, if the origin work was not
stated ‘copyright reserved’.
原文地址http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17351133 2012年3月14日GMT访问
关于同性婚姻的辩论中的一个十分核心的问题就是婚姻的定义。对于某些人来说，婚姻的定义随着社会及经济需求的改变而改变，对另一些人来说则是恒久不变的。那么这些年来，习俗到底有了哪些改变呢？
最近不少的争辩集中在“谁掌控宣布婚姻的权利”上：是教会还是国家。其实在现实中，不同的时间段两者都扮演了相当重要的角色。
1，战略联盟阶段
对早期的盎格鲁撒克逊人和不列颠人来说，婚姻完全是为了维系关系，对于此关系的理解和现代略有不同。“盎格鲁撒克逊人视婚姻为一种建立外交和贸易纽带的战略工具。”《关于婚姻-爱情婚姻战争史》的作者斯蒂芬妮·孔慈说到，“随着婚姻关系的建立，部族之间保持了和平，建立了贸易关系以及相互交错的责任体系”
图为原始安格鲁萨克逊家庭男耕女织。
随着财富差异的出现婚姻的选择也随之改变。家长们不再单一的以“与相邻人群建立联系”来把自己的子女随便的嫁给相邻的随便什么人。他们希望子女的婚姻对象是一个富有的人，至少要像自己一样富有。孔慈认为，“婚姻和阴谋与背叛之间的联系，就是从这一段开始的”。
翻译到此中断，睡觉去，醒来再说。
待完成的部分参见下文。
2. Consent
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
In conjugal debt the woman has equal rights to the man and the man to the woman so that neither a wife may make a vow of abstinence without the consent of her husband, nor the husband without the consent of his wife”
Decretum Gratiani
During the 11th Century, marriage was about securing an economic or political advantage. The wishes of the married couple - much less their consent - were of little importance. The bride, particularly, was assumed to bow to her father's wishes and the marriage arrangements made on her behalf.
However, for the Benedictine monk Gratian the consent of the couple mattered more than their family's approval. Gratian brought consent into the fold of formalised marriage in 1140 with his canon law textbook, Decretum Gratiani.
The Decretum required couples to give their verbal consent and consummate the marriage to forge a marital bond. No longer was a bride or groom's presence at a ceremony enough to signify their assent.
The book formed the foundation for the Church's marriage policies in the 12th Century and "set out the rules for marriage and sexuality in a changing social environment", says historian Joanne Bailey of Oxford Brookes University.
3. The sacrament of marriage
As early as the 12th Century, Roman Catholic theologians and writers referred to marriage as a sacrament, a sacred ceremony tied to experiencing God's presence. However, it wasn't until the Council of Trent in 1563 that marriage was officially deemed one of the seven sacraments, says Elizabeth Davies, of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.
Following the development of Protestant theology, which did not recognise marriage as a sacrament, the Council felt a need to "clarify" marriage's place. "There was an underlying assumption that marriage was a sacrament, but it was clearly defined in 1563 because of the need to challenge teaching that suggested it wasn't," Davies says.
4. Wedding vows
In sickness and in health
Marriage vows, as couples recite them today, date back to Thomas Cranmer, the architect of English Protestantism. Cranmer laid out the purpose for marriage and scripted modern wedding vows nearly 500 years ago in his Book of Common Prayer, says the Reverend Duncan Dormor of St John's College at the University of Cambridge.
Although the book was revised in 1552 and 1662, "the guts of the marriage service are there in 1549," he says. "All the things that you think of, 'to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer', all of that stuff comes from that point." The marriage service has had "remarkable continuity" compared with most other services, he says.
But much of it was "pilfered from Catholic medieval rites", such as the Sarum marriage liturgy, which was all in Latin except the actual vows. "What makes the 1549 service significant is that it is the introduction of a Protestant service in English, and it's basically the words that we all know with a couple of small tweaks," Dormor says.
5. Divorce
Collecting evidence for a divorce
Before 1858, divorce was rare. In 1670, Parliament passed an act allowing John Manners, Lord Roos, to divorce his wife, Lady Anne Pierpon. This created a precedent for parliamentary divorces on the grounds of the wife's adultery, according to the National Archives.
This marked "the start of modern 'divorce'," says Rebecca Probert of the University of Warwick School of Law.
It also set the precedent for more than 300 cases between the late 17th and mid-19th Centuries - each requiring an act of Parliament. It was only in 1858 that divorce could be carried out via legal process. Even then divorce was too expensive for most people, and there was the added challenge for wives of proving "aggravated" adultery - that their husbands had been guilty of cruelty, desertion, bigamy, incest, sodomy or bestiality, Probert says.
The gates for divorce opened with the Divorce Reform Act of 1969. Instead of pointing the finger, couples could cite marital breakdown as the reason for the split.
"Prior to 1969, the script was that marriage was for life" says Bren Neale, a University of Leeds sociologist. "The divorce law meant that people trapped in bad marriages need not stay in them forever." The emphasis on marriage shifted from a long-term commitment at all costs to a personal relationship where individual fulfilment is important, she says.
6. State control
The Clandestine Marriage Act of 1753, popularly known as Lord Hardwicke's Act, marked the beginning of state involvement in marriage, says sociologist Carol Smart of the University of Manchester. "You've got these parallel strands going on of the secular and the religious sides, and that clearly hasn't gone away," Smart adds.
The act required couples to get married in a church or chapel by a minister, otherwise the union was void. Couples also had to issue a formal marriage announcement, called banns, or obtain a licence.
Most prospective newlyweds were already following these directives, which were enshrined in canon law. But with the act, "the penalty for not complying became much, much harsher," Probert says.
"You can see it as the state increasing its control - this is almost too important just to leave to canon law, this needs a statute scheme and specific penalties if you don't comply," she says. "[It] put the formalities required for a valid marriage on a statutory footing for the first time."
7. Civil marriages
The Marriage Act of 1836 allowed for non-religious civil marriages to be held in register offices. These were set up in towns and cities across England and Wales. The act also meant nonconformists and Catholic couples could marry in their own places of worship, according to their own rites. Apart from a brief period during the 17th Century, marriages had been overseen by the Church of England - even if the couples weren't members.
"If you were Baptist, you might not want to get married in the Church of England but that was what you had to do," Probert says. "There's no point in going through a ceremony that didn't give you the status of a married couple."
The state also started keeping national statistics for marriage around this time. Non-Anglican couples were required to have a civil official present to document their marriages. "They're not actually trusted, in a sense, to record marriages themselves," Probert says.
8. Love enshrined
The Victorians fell in love with the notion of love
Roaming bards sang of love during medieval times and Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet acted it out on stage, but it wasn't until the Victorian era that it became accepted as a foundation for marriage. "The Victorians were really, really invested in the idea of love - that marriage should actually be based on love or companionship," says Jennifer Phegley, author of Courtship and Marriage in Victorian England.
The growing importance of the middle class and new money blurred the traditional social boundaries for marriage. With more social mobility, there was a growing "distaste" among the middle classes for thinking of marriage as "a family-arranged event for exchanging a daughter into a family for gain", Phegley says.
Aspiring lovebirds needed only look to Queen Victoria and Prince Albert for inspiration - the couple was upheld as the icon of the loving marriage. Their union may have been based on bloodlines, but Victoria frequently referred to it as a "love match". "If you read her letters and her diaries, she's very effusive about how in love with him she was, and this sort of filtered down into society," Phegley says.
9. More than baby-making
Catholic and Anglican doctrine have historically elevated procreation as one of the primary reasons for marriage. But in the late 19th Century, a "silent revolution" began taking place, Dormor says. With more children surviving and family sizes ballooning, couples started using rudimentary methods of birth control to limit pregnancies. "It beings the process of decoupling procreation from marriage, at some level," Dormor says.
"Before, if you're married, you have a sexual relationship, and you have kids. The idea that you would do something to stop yourself from having kids within a marriage doesn't seem to be part of the mental landscape, but in the last few decades [of the 19th Century] it's quite clear that things are changing."
The Anglican Church cautiously accepted artificial contraception in the 1930s at a conference of bishops, but only where there was a "clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood". Today, the Church of England does not regard contraception as a sin or going against God's purpose.
For the Catholic Church "the procreation of children" remains "one of the essential things that marriage is about", says Father Ashley Beck at St Mary's University College, London. When a couple is preparing to marry, the subject of children is often discussed with a priest. "If they were going to rule out having children, then we wouldn't marry them," he says.
10. Civil partnerships
The first ceremonies under the Civil Partnerships Act took place in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales in December 2005. At the time, campaigners said the law ended inequalities for same-sex couples. Meg Munn, minister for equality, said: "It accords people in same-sex relationships the same sort of rights and responsibilities that are available to married couples."
Smart calls the event a "milestone" that "is marriage by any other name, essentially".
She adds: "Legally speaking, there's only a tiny difference.
"The actual allowing of same-sex couples to enter into a state-recognised, basically marriage, with all the same obligations, the same safeguards and so on is really, really significant."
To many Christians, however, while a civil partnership confers all the legal rights of marriage, a church wedding is seen as a mystical event, the making of promises before God in a sacred setting, endowing the relationship with a special "blessed" quality.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
In conjugal debt the woman has equal rights to the man and the man to the woman so that neither a wife may make a vow of abstinence without the consent of her husband, nor the husband without the consent of his wife”
Decretum Gratiani
During the 11th Century, marriage was about securing an economic or political advantage. The wishes of the married couple - much less their consent - were of little importance. The bride, particularly, was assumed to bow to her father's wishes and the marriage arrangements made on her behalf.
However, for the Benedictine monk Gratian the consent of the couple mattered more than their family's approval. Gratian brought consent into the fold of formalised marriage in 1140 with his canon law textbook, Decretum Gratiani.
The Decretum required couples to give their verbal consent and consummate the marriage to forge a marital bond. No longer was a bride or groom's presence at a ceremony enough to signify their assent.
The book formed the foundation for the Church's marriage policies in the 12th Century and "set out the rules for marriage and sexuality in a changing social environment", says historian Joanne Bailey of Oxford Brookes University.
3. The sacrament of marriage
As early as the 12th Century, Roman Catholic theologians and writers referred to marriage as a sacrament, a sacred ceremony tied to experiencing God's presence. However, it wasn't until the Council of Trent in 1563 that marriage was officially deemed one of the seven sacraments, says Elizabeth Davies, of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.
Following the development of Protestant theology, which did not recognise marriage as a sacrament, the Council felt a need to "clarify" marriage's place. "There was an underlying assumption that marriage was a sacrament, but it was clearly defined in 1563 because of the need to challenge teaching that suggested it wasn't," Davies says.
4. Wedding vows
In sickness and in health
Marriage vows, as couples recite them today, date back to Thomas Cranmer, the architect of English Protestantism. Cranmer laid out the purpose for marriage and scripted modern wedding vows nearly 500 years ago in his Book of Common Prayer, says the Reverend Duncan Dormor of St John's College at the University of Cambridge.
Although the book was revised in 1552 and 1662, "the guts of the marriage service are there in 1549," he says. "All the things that you think of, 'to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer', all of that stuff comes from that point." The marriage service has had "remarkable continuity" compared with most other services, he says.
But much of it was "pilfered from Catholic medieval rites", such as the Sarum marriage liturgy, which was all in Latin except the actual vows. "What makes the 1549 service significant is that it is the introduction of a Protestant service in English, and it's basically the words that we all know with a couple of small tweaks," Dormor says.
5. Divorce
Collecting evidence for a divorce
Before 1858, divorce was rare. In 1670, Parliament passed an act allowing John Manners, Lord Roos, to divorce his wife, Lady Anne Pierpon. This created a precedent for parliamentary divorces on the grounds of the wife's adultery, according to the National Archives.
This marked "the start of modern 'divorce'," says Rebecca Probert of the University of Warwick School of Law.
It also set the precedent for more than 300 cases between the late 17th and mid-19th Centuries - each requiring an act of Parliament. It was only in 1858 that divorce could be carried out via legal process. Even then divorce was too expensive for most people, and there was the added challenge for wives of proving "aggravated" adultery - that their husbands had been guilty of cruelty, desertion, bigamy, incest, sodomy or bestiality, Probert says.
The gates for divorce opened with the Divorce Reform Act of 1969. Instead of pointing the finger, couples could cite marital breakdown as the reason for the split.
"Prior to 1969, the script was that marriage was for life" says Bren Neale, a University of Leeds sociologist. "The divorce law meant that people trapped in bad marriages need not stay in them forever." The emphasis on marriage shifted from a long-term commitment at all costs to a personal relationship where individual fulfilment is important, she says.
6. State control
The Clandestine Marriage Act of 1753, popularly known as Lord Hardwicke's Act, marked the beginning of state involvement in marriage, says sociologist Carol Smart of the University of Manchester. "You've got these parallel strands going on of the secular and the religious sides, and that clearly hasn't gone away," Smart adds.
The act required couples to get married in a church or chapel by a minister, otherwise the union was void. Couples also had to issue a formal marriage announcement, called banns, or obtain a licence.
Most prospective newlyweds were already following these directives, which were enshrined in canon law. But with the act, "the penalty for not complying became much, much harsher," Probert says.
"You can see it as the state increasing its control - this is almost too important just to leave to canon law, this needs a statute scheme and specific penalties if you don't comply," she says. "[It] put the formalities required for a valid marriage on a statutory footing for the first time."
7. Civil marriages
The Marriage Act of 1836 allowed for non-religious civil marriages to be held in register offices. These were set up in towns and cities across England and Wales. The act also meant nonconformists and Catholic couples could marry in their own places of worship, according to their own rites. Apart from a brief period during the 17th Century, marriages had been overseen by the Church of England - even if the couples weren't members.
"If you were Baptist, you might not want to get married in the Church of England but that was what you had to do," Probert says. "There's no point in going through a ceremony that didn't give you the status of a married couple."
The state also started keeping national statistics for marriage around this time. Non-Anglican couples were required to have a civil official present to document their marriages. "They're not actually trusted, in a sense, to record marriages themselves," Probert says.
8. Love enshrined
The Victorians fell in love with the notion of love
Roaming bards sang of love during medieval times and Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet acted it out on stage, but it wasn't until the Victorian era that it became accepted as a foundation for marriage. "The Victorians were really, really invested in the idea of love - that marriage should actually be based on love or companionship," says Jennifer Phegley, author of Courtship and Marriage in Victorian England.
The growing importance of the middle class and new money blurred the traditional social boundaries for marriage. With more social mobility, there was a growing "distaste" among the middle classes for thinking of marriage as "a family-arranged event for exchanging a daughter into a family for gain", Phegley says.
Aspiring lovebirds needed only look to Queen Victoria and Prince Albert for inspiration - the couple was upheld as the icon of the loving marriage. Their union may have been based on bloodlines, but Victoria frequently referred to it as a "love match". "If you read her letters and her diaries, she's very effusive about how in love with him she was, and this sort of filtered down into society," Phegley says.
9. More than baby-making
Catholic and Anglican doctrine have historically elevated procreation as one of the primary reasons for marriage. But in the late 19th Century, a "silent revolution" began taking place, Dormor says. With more children surviving and family sizes ballooning, couples started using rudimentary methods of birth control to limit pregnancies. "It beings the process of decoupling procreation from marriage, at some level," Dormor says.
"Before, if you're married, you have a sexual relationship, and you have kids. The idea that you would do something to stop yourself from having kids within a marriage doesn't seem to be part of the mental landscape, but in the last few decades [of the 19th Century] it's quite clear that things are changing."
The Anglican Church cautiously accepted artificial contraception in the 1930s at a conference of bishops, but only where there was a "clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood". Today, the Church of England does not regard contraception as a sin or going against God's purpose.
For the Catholic Church "the procreation of children" remains "one of the essential things that marriage is about", says Father Ashley Beck at St Mary's University College, London. When a couple is preparing to marry, the subject of children is often discussed with a priest. "If they were going to rule out having children, then we wouldn't marry them," he says.
10. Civil partnerships
The first ceremonies under the Civil Partnerships Act took place in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales in December 2005. At the time, campaigners said the law ended inequalities for same-sex couples. Meg Munn, minister for equality, said: "It accords people in same-sex relationships the same sort of rights and responsibilities that are available to married couples."
Smart calls the event a "milestone" that "is marriage by any other name, essentially".
She adds: "Legally speaking, there's only a tiny difference.
"The actual allowing of same-sex couples to enter into a state-recognised, basically marriage, with all the same obligations, the same safeguards and so on is really, really significant."
To many Christians, however, while a civil partnership confers all the legal rights of marriage, a church wedding is seen as a mystical event, the making of promises before God in a sacred setting, endowing the relationship with a special "blessed" quality.
2. Consent待
During the 11th Century, marriage was about securing an economic or political advantage. The wishes of the married couple - much less their consent - were of little importance. The bride, particularly, was assumed to bow to her father's wishes and the marriage arrangements made on her behalf.
However, for the Benedictine monk Gratian the consent of the couple mattered more than their family's approval. Gratian brought consent into the fold of formalised marriage in 1140 with his canon law textbook, Decretum Gratiani.
The Decretum required couples to give their verbal consent and consummate the marriage to forge a marital bond. No longer was a bride or groom's presence at a ceremony enough to signify their assent.
The book formed the foundation for the Church's marriage policies in the 12th Century and "set out the rules for marriage and sexuality in a changing social environment", says historian Joanne Bailey of Oxford Brookes University.
3. The sacrament of marriage
As early as the 12th Century, Roman Catholic theologians and writers referred to marriage as a sacrament, a sacred ceremony tied to experiencing God's presence. However, it wasn't until the Council of Trent in 1563 that marriage was officially deemed one of the seven sacraments, says Elizabeth Davies, of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.
Following the development of Protestant theology, which did not recognise marriage as a sacrament, the Council felt a need to "clarify" marriage's place. "There was an underlying assumption that marriage was a sacrament, but it was clearly defined in 1563 because of the need to challenge teaching that suggested it wasn't," Davies says.
4. Wedding vows
In sickness and in health
Marriage vows, as couples recite them today, date back to Thomas Cranmer, the architect of English Protestantism. Cranmer laid out the purpose for marriage and scripted modern wedding vows nearly 500 years ago in his Book of Common Prayer, says the Reverend Duncan Dormor of St John's College at the University of Cambridge.
Although the book was revised in 1552 and 1662, "the guts of the marriage service are there in 1549," he says. "All the things that you think of, 'to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer', all of that stuff comes from that point." The marriage service has had "remarkable continuity" compared with most other services, he says.
But much of it was "pilfered from Catholic medieval rites", such as the Sarum marriage liturgy, which was all in Latin except the actual vows. "What makes the 1549 service significant is that it is the introduction of a Protestant service in English, and it's basically the words that we all know with a couple of small tweaks," Dormor says.
5. Divorce
Collecting evidence for a divorce
Before 1858, divorce was rare. In 1670, Parliament passed an act allowing John Manners, Lord Roos, to divorce his wife, Lady Anne Pierpon. This created a precedent for parliamentary divorces on the grounds of the wife's adultery, according to the National Archives.
This marked "the start of modern 'divorce'," says Rebecca Probert of the University of Warwick School of Law.
It also set the precedent for more than 300 cases between the late 17th and mid-19th Centuries - each requiring an act of Parliament. It was only in 1858 that divorce could be carried out via legal process. Even then divorce was too expensive for most people, and there was the added challenge for wives of proving "aggravated" adultery - that their husbands had been guilty of cruelty, desertion, bigamy, incest, sodomy or bestiality, Probert says.
The gates for divorce opened with the Divorce Reform Act of 1969. Instead of pointing the finger, couples could cite marital breakdown as the reason for the split.
"Prior to 1969, the script was that marriage was for life" says Bren Neale, a University of Leeds sociologist. "The divorce law meant that people trapped in bad marriages need not stay in them forever." The emphasis on marriage shifted from a long-term commitment at all costs to a personal relationship where individual fulfilment is important, she says.
6. State control
The Clandestine Marriage Act of 1753, popularly known as Lord Hardwicke's Act, marked the beginning of state involvement in marriage, says sociologist Carol Smart of the University of Manchester. "You've got these parallel strands going on of the secular and the religious sides, and that clearly hasn't gone away," Smart adds.
The act required couples to get married in a church or chapel by a minister, otherwise the union was void. Couples also had to issue a formal marriage announcement, called banns, or obtain a licence.
Most prospective newlyweds were already following these directives, which were enshrined in canon law. But with the act, "the penalty for not complying became much, much harsher," Probert says.
"You can see it as the state increasing its control - this is almost too important just to leave to canon law, this needs a statute scheme and specific penalties if you don't comply," she says. "[It] put the formalities required for a valid marriage on a statutory footing for the first time."
7. Civil marriages
The Marriage Act of 1836 allowed for non-religious civil marriages to be held in register offices. These were set up in towns and cities across England and Wales. The act also meant nonconformists and Catholic couples could marry in their own places of worship, according to their own rites. Apart from a brief period during the 17th Century, marriages had been overseen by the Church of England - even if the couples weren't members.
"If you were Baptist, you might not want to get married in the Church of England but that was what you had to do," Probert says. "There's no point in going through a ceremony that didn't give you the status of a married couple."
The state also started keeping national statistics for marriage around this time. Non-Anglican couples were required to have a civil official present to document their marriages. "They're not actually trusted, in a sense, to record marriages themselves," Probert says.
8. Love enshrined
The Victorians fell in love with the notion of love
Roaming bards sang of love during medieval times and Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet acted it out on stage, but it wasn't until the Victorian era that it became accepted as a foundation for marriage. "The Victorians were really, really invested in the idea of love - that marriage should actually be based on love or companionship," says Jennifer Phegley, author of Courtship and Marriage in Victorian England.
The growing importance of the middle class and new money blurred the traditional social boundaries for marriage. With more social mobility, there was a growing "distaste" among the middle classes for thinking of marriage as "a family-arranged event for exchanging a daughter into a family for gain", Phegley says.
Aspiring lovebirds needed only look to Queen Victoria and Prince Albert for inspiration - the couple was upheld as the icon of the loving marriage. Their union may have been based on bloodlines, but Victoria frequently referred to it as a "love match". "If you read her letters and her diaries, she's very effusive about how in love with him she was, and this sort of filtered down into society," Phegley says.
9. More than baby-making
Catholic and Anglican doctrine have historically elevated procreation as one of the primary reasons for marriage. But in the late 19th Century, a "silent revolution" began taking place, Dormor says. With more children surviving and family sizes ballooning, couples started using rudimentary methods of birth control to limit pregnancies. "It beings the process of decoupling procreation from marriage, at some level," Dormor says.
"Before, if you're married, you have a sexual relationship, and you have kids. The idea that you would do something to stop yourself from having kids within a marriage doesn't seem to be part of the mental landscape, but in the last few decades [of the 19th Century] it's quite clear that things are changing."
The Anglican Church cautiously accepted artificial contraception in the 1930s at a conference of bishops, but only where there was a "clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood". Today, the Church of England does not regard contraception as a sin or going against God's purpose.
For the Catholic Church "the procreation of children" remains "one of the essential things that marriage is about", says Father Ashley Beck at St Mary's University College, London. When a couple is preparing to marry, the subject of children is often discussed with a priest. "If they were going to rule out having children, then we wouldn't marry them," he says.
10. Civil partnerships
The first ceremonies under the Civil Partnerships Act took place in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales in December 2005. At the time, campaigners said the law ended inequalities for same-sex couples. Meg Munn, minister for equality, said: "It accords people in same-sex relationships the same sort of rights and responsibilities that are available to married couples."
Smart calls the event a "milestone" that "is marriage by any other name, essentially".
She adds: "Legally speaking, there's only a tiny difference.
"The actual allowing of same-sex couples to enter into a state-recognised, basically marriage, with all the same obligations, the same safeguards and so on is really, really significant."
To many Christians, however, while a civil partnership confers all the legal rights of marriage, a church wedding is seen as a mystical event, the making of promises before God in a sacred setting, endowing the relationship with a special "blessed" quality.
订阅：
评论 (Atom)