What you seem to be selling is the very broadest notion imaginable that marriage is precisely what two or more people, who claim that union amongst themselves, choose it to be, defining their relationship for a moment, an hour, a day or a decade, with no outside authority to validate or structure any social parameters around it. In other words it just defines a relationship between people. It excludes nothing and actually means very very little because the scope of the understanding is very small . If a teacher and a student describe themselves as married just tutoring and studying once a week, that is what they are. If a secretary and her boss choose to call their relationship a marriage, no one to argue that answering the phone, drafting a letter, and paying a weekly salary is not a marriage. If a brother and sister describe themselves as married because they play scrabble, and have a monthly lunch date, that is what they are. If the 75 member graduating class of 1982 from Carver High described themselves as all married each reunion and divorced after the hangover left, that is what they all were while from 7:00 through 2:00 am. Because the definition changes from culture and time and probably will continue to, there really cannot be a definition beyond what its 'participants' claim it to be at the moment they claim it. It does not even require consent. If I claim to be married to you. But you claim you are not married to me. Then we can both be right, simultaneously using our own definition. Its really hard to divorce someone if the two parties disagree on what they want. I want the definition to include us as a couple. You don't. You cannot prove that consent is required because you cannot prove my definition is wrong and I say it isn't anymore because I say so. Now there is nothing unique about this quandary. That is my problem. It is exactly as amorphous and ambiguous as every other relationship. Same with a student and his tutor, or two friends. the closest comparison of course is that of a boyfriend and a girlfriend. two can be, then break up, then be again in a matter of three hours. There is zero difference because there once was no such difference. Marriage is a superfluous word that defines nothing. I can call my boyfriend my honeybunch, and he can call me his teddy bear and it has exactly the same meaning as if I call him husband and he calls me husband. its just two sweet words we chose to say for awhile. You needn't bother with a precedent from the 1300s. There is no need for one. You decided what it means. who else matters? I sure can't cite any contrary ones when they are ruled irrelevant because history changes the structure of institution and your view is as good any from 1292 in Japan.
We are probably aligned on a number of points. Marriage throughout history has had such a vast number of meanings and combinations that there cannot be any one true definition of it, despite the efforts of those who try to make it so. I will have to partially disagree with you on the consent bit. While yes, anyone can make any claim on what relationship they hold, how it holds up when interacting with others will depend upon the consent of the other(s) in the claimed relationship. A lot will also depend upon what the goal in claiming said relationship is. When most people enter into a marriage, at least in this modern era of marriage for love, their goal is usually irrelevant of whether others think them married or not. This is separate as to whether or not it is important to them that others recognize their relationship. For example, while it is important to me and my spouses that others to recognize our marriage, it is more important that we four have our marriage as we see it. For some it might be important that the claimed relationship be recognized for the benefits such a relationship would gain for them. As an example, my one wife and I were married long before we ever bothered to get government recognition of such. We had no need for the extra benefits that would have come with it. Now when we started looking at the possibility of purchasing a house, we knew that legal marriage would make things easier on us, so that became important then. Even when the benefits are social in nature, such as by being a person's friend, lover or spouse would mean access to other people said person knows, consent of the person is necessary for the claiming of that relationship. Or more to the point gaining the benefits of the claimed relationship.
At one point marriages between Black people in the U.S.A. were not recognized either. They simply jumped over a broom, and that was that. Just because obnoxious Bigots refuse to recognize S.S.M. does not make it any less valid, and yes, there are L G.B.T. Churches.
Yeah, sure, your daffynition does not cover all the bases. In the stone age, some clandestine young S.S. couples simply called each other freinds and let it go at that, rather than face intense bigotry and opposition. " I disagree. Most gay couples I know never once have used the term life partner. That tends to be how uneasy parents or relatives of the couple introduce their spouses." Should read; " I disagree. Most gay couples I know never once have used the term life partner. That tends to be how uneasy parents or relatives of the couple, introduce the Gay or Lesbian couple..
