...it does seem that the Anglo-Saxons separated and divorced when they had to, without any particular ethical complications. The only concern of the community was practical -- the proper partitioning of property and the care of the children. One Anglo-Saxon law code makes clear that a woman could walk out of her marriage on her own initiative if she cared to, and that if she took the children and cared for them, then she was also entitled to half the property.And the terms for man and woman? Men were called waepnedmenn "weaponed-persons" and the women wifmenn "weaving-persons".
The Old English law codes were concerned to shield women against the hazards of life in a rough, male-dominated society...
But, the point of the quote?
Today, there is much ado by the social engineers to have the state create male-male and female-female marriages (whether the people are actually male and actually female). It is as though the state, the community empowered, is interested in people's romances. It is not, and should not be, and the Anglo-Saxons set the precedent: the state's interest in marriage its about protecting children (and women).
I think the sub-plot to 'same sex marriage' is to legitimise an artificial union so as to enable the exploitation of children. This might not be sexual exploitation, but forcing children into an arrangement where they are inevitably (and not accidentally) deprived of one of their parents is exploitation. Children become possessions subservient to the interests of adults. If money changes hand in procuring such children we have returned to child slavery, and sanctioned by the state!
It is that that is abhorrent. The social tinkering of pagans I'm not the least interested in, otherwise.
