Safety of Marriage Act (1955)

This piece of Gramatian legislation would be puzzling for most terrestrials, but until 1955 it was a tradition for groups of armed men and women to crash a wedding in order to chase away the guests and to beat up the groom. Though it is not known when this tradition began, there are reports from as early as the thirteenth century about wedding disturbances. Anyway the origin of the bizarre custom has to be sought in a deep religious aversion against marriage.

However, a wedding disturbance in 1954 ended up in a horrible bloodshed, resulting in the death of dozens of people – including the bride and groom. Despite the brutality of the event, none of the disturbers got arrested and the imperial office for criminal prosecution refused to bring charges against anyone.

Within a week the Supreme Council passed a bill to make wedding disturbance a criminal offense. But the Senate initially refused to even discuss this bill, citing that “assault” was already a crime and also that marriage was considered sinful by many and hence “special” protection for weddings would run counter to public values. It was only after the Supreme Council threatened to suspend senatorial salaries, they passed the bill too.

Even after the bill was passed by both chambers of parliament, it was uncertain of the bill would receive imperial assent. Many conservatives appealed to the Emperor to refuse assent and even his mother Idemey, who had participated herself in several wedding disturbances as a young woman, spoke publicly against this bill. But after three months of hesitating the Emperor finally signed to bill into law.

Nevertheless, a small group of very determined people continued to disturb wedding in the 1960s and 1970s. As far as we know the last wedding disturbance took place in 1977. The only person to be ever convicted under this act was released from prison in 1999.


8 responses

  1. I thought it was the bride’s job/duty to beat up the groom. πŸ™‚
    Are you married? πŸ˜‰

    1. No, I am not… and I am sure I will not – after reading your comment ;).

  2. Now this is a good idea lo

    1. Well it did piss off a bunch of religious fanatics.

      1. I am not a fan of weddings. I would support the disruptions

      2. So you find yourself on the side of the religious extremist πŸ˜‰ lol πŸ™‚

      3. I will be forgiven this one infraction.
        I would be interested in knowing how the church got involved in issues of marriage, naming and burials

      4. We’ll see that later this week πŸ™‚

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: