John and Nancy

John and Nancy:  Married since 1974

These are our soon to be in laws, John and Nancy.  Their daughter, Liz, is marrying our son, Josh, in one week and we couldn't be happier about it.  This really is the best of all possible worlds: one in which we all get along!  Josh and Liz are ideally suited to each other and as parents we truly love and respect them both and have enjoyed watching their relationship grow and mature.  We often shake our heads in wonder at our extreme good fortune in that we all really do LIKE one another and enjoy each other's company, Nancy and John have become dear friends and we know how rare that is.  

The idea of "In-Laws" got me thinking and I did a little (and I mean a little! ) research into the concept, and there have been a lot of rules that have come and gone that define this extended relation status and I think it reflects the current marital uproar we find ourselves in. It all revolves around the idea of affinity... relationships that arise from a 'valid' marriage in the Catholic church and the prohibitions regarding future marriages within those relations, as far as I can tell.  It's really complicated.  It seems to me though, that as our culture has advanced, and scientific knowledge about human genetics has evolved, many of these rules have become obsolete.  

Having recently accompanied Josh and Liz to get their marriage license, I witnessed them swear that they were not closer in blood relationship than second cousins, though it seems that that is not necessarily an impediment to marriage.  (Interestingly, one does have to indicate whether or not one is a convicted felon).  So, it's no longer an impediment to marriage if your intended is the daughter of your step father or having intercourse with someone, not your spouse, does not bar you from marrying their sibling.  I found it especially interesting that the church could grant a dispensation and allow certain marriages to take place, despite the bans decreed by affinity: "...it is also clear that the Church used the ability to grant dispensations from the rule as a means of gaining both power and money from the nobility, as most royal marriages, given the limited circle of families involved, breached these limits."  (Wikipedia)  

No wonder people are confused about what constitutes marriage, when all the ensuing relationships have been made so complicated, confusing and are ever changing, with roots stemming from Mosaic and Roman Law, but with special consideration made for the wealthy and powerful....hmmm.  It seems apparent that there were different sets of moral law applied at the whim of church leaders.  Why are people still looking to Leviticus to define marriage, when clearly we live in a different time and place?  The legal rules regarding marriage, and divorce, for that matter, are more equally applied to both parties these days, so it seems a little desperate to be reaching back so far in history for a ruling on the issue.  

So back to the coming nuptials: 

We are looking forward to the marriage of our kids, David and I not only gain a daughter, but a whole family, we are bound by the marriage of Josh and Liz, through love, no matter what the current law says about it.  We have so much to celebrate!  We hope someday all couples and their families can celebrate in the same way.

[edit]