Odd Links In My Family Tree
With all the fuss about gay marriage, it is worth noting who you could marry was different in the past.
One of my ancestors in about 1850 was the progeny of one pair of marriages, where two brothers married two sisters. I’m not sure who, but one of the brothers and one of the sisters, who weren’t married to each other, died, leaving the two surviving parents with several children. They obviously lived together, as the union produced some more brothers and sisters.
But the law at the time, said that marriage was not allowed.
Today, in this rare situation, there would be no problem if the two parents wanted to marry, as the law has changed.
I think that the current position is sensible, but I doubt there have been many cases, where someone has married their sibling’s widow.
Leviticus incidentally has a view.
If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is impurity. He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.
That certainly didn’t occur in my ancestor’s case, as there were at least two more children. Genetically, of course, they shared a lot of genes, but they would have been no more inbred than the original children.
There is also the case of two of my mother’s brothers, who married first cousins.
Now that still happens! Although for genetic reasons, I don’t think it is a good idea. It would also be impossible for me, as I have no female first cousins and only ever had one. There is a good discussion on Wikipedia.
Last night, there was a very heated debate on gay marriage on BBC Radio 5. So for those who say it is against the Bible, I say that for reasons of common human decency, the law can and should be changed, just as it was to help those like my Victorian ancestors.
I’m very much with David Cameron’s view, that everybody has the right to a long, happy and fulfilling marriage. I certainly enjoyed my marriage for nearly forty years until my wife died.
Widowhood is not the best of circumstances.
The Anonymous Widower 
The Leviticus reading doesnt mean what it seems to mean. It is referring to adultery. The concept of marriage in Leviticus is very different from today anyway, men had several wives and lots of concubines; more men than women because more men were killed in wars or out hunting.
Comment by Liz P | December 8, 2012 |
I know that there was a shortage of men and yet very few people have ever practised polyandry. I think the odd South American tribe did.
Comment by AnonW | December 8, 2012 |
Native Australians, dont know how recently. But other sources relating to Biblical times do talk about it as well. Every woman needed a man to be responsible for her care and well being.
Comment by Liz P | December 9, 2012 |