For as long as people have been entering into the state of matrimony there has been the question of how to properly end a marriage if it becomes necessary. The acceptable reasons and methods of divorce have not remained constant in history, but the concept itself has stayed central in the overarching idea of matrimonial relationships. If the state of wedlock is meant to be something freely entered into and chosen by the individuals, then surely those individuals must be offered proper recourse if it turns out that the wedding was a bad idea.

In the Roman Empire, marriage and the dissolution thereof were considered to be part of the basic rights available to a citizen. For a Roman couple seeking to end their wedlock, a short trip to the magistrate and a declaration of their wishes was enough to consider them no longer husband and wife. This is not to imply that such a parting of the ways was to be undertaken lightly, as family and social considerations would often require a couple to give serious thought to taking this step.

With the onset of the Medieval Era in Europe, marriage and its opposite quickly fell under the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts instead of civil ones. The concept of “holy matrimony” and the teachings that a man and his wife are joined under God and with the blessing of the church meant that no longer did the secular world have the authority to undo these ties.

It was during this time that extreme stigma began to be associated with those who had terminated their wedlock. With the church claiming the state of wedlock as part of their purview, the obvious implication was that those who exit such a blessed arrangement have either lied before God or had taken a serious matter very lightly.

This sentiment remains an undercurrent in many societies even today. Perhaps the religious considerations are still strong in some cultures, in others it may be that social taboos exist to dissuade people from marital separation. Whatever the case, there are many married couples in the world who no longer wish to remain together but are not able to easily break their contract with each other.

The first major challenge to the Catholic church’s exclusive authority with regards to wedded couples came from the English King Henry VII. Culminating in the Church of England’s split from the Roman Catholic Church, Henry’s opposition to the Pope’s edicts stemmed from the monarch’s desire to separate from his then wife of twenty-four years Catherine of Aragon.

Since then, most of the western world has a more relaxed attitude towards the breaking up of married households. It is important to note, however, that while religious convictions against the idea of the separation of a man and his wife still exist and remain powerful in many countries, there is a specific and new consideration which has evolved in modern wedlock. Wedlock is seen as more of a civil contract than a spiritual bond in many of the industrial societies today, and as such there are considerable legal aspects involved in its destruction.

The argument has been presented that in order for marriage to be truly free and open to all then the ability to remove oneself from such a contract must be equally available. It can be shown that in some countries, especially highly-progressive western nations, have an incidence of divorce nearly as high as that of marriage, but this can be seen as the exercise of personal liberty rather than spiritual weakness or defiance of convention.

Author Bio: With our revolutionary programs in marriage counselling Toronto and couples therapy Toronto, we provide a solution for those struggling in their relationship.

Category: Relationships
Keywords: Family,society,marriage,divorce,mediation,counseling,therapy,help,advice