Gamall Steinn [Common Law] Formation Of Germanic Common Law

On The Formation Of Germanic Common Law

In drafting and promulgating any body of laws, particularly those enacted amongst Germanic heathens for the benefit of the Folk, I would hope that the law which would result would be:

Simple: as I've said, the Lawspeaker could recite it, and any good chieftain should be able to recite the majority of it, as knowing the law is a foundation of chieftainship.

Self-evident: the last thing you want a law to be is controversial (see "Roe v. Wade"). It needs to be natural, organic, an outgrowth of experience and founded in common sense working for the common good. Of course you don't murder (kill from stealth, deny the deed later proven or refuse compensation). It creates the opportunity for vengeance and social unrest, creating feuding parties.

Flexible: after all, we can't think of everything.

Binding: there are folks in the Innangardh -- folks to whom we owe a duty, who are extended family -- and folks who aren't. Those who are respect the law. They have a contract with the Innangardh.

I'm coming to believe that we need to address "heathen common law", that which binds us as heathens, generally describing the Germanic heathen Innangardh, leaving more specific rules and observances for specific organizations, kindreds, sippes and hearths, so long as they are in keeping with the common law.

For instance, I wouldn't even think of addressing sexual conduct (a real hot button) except in the context of a marriage oath in common law. Put one toe over the line and address homosexuality, and your house of cards crumbles. Let the Alliance, your kindred, my kindred or the guy down the street's kindred refuse to marry gays, refuse to admit them, refuse to admit that they're human, whatever.

Let this kindred or that decide who is or isn't in their Innangardh, as the Alliance does. The Alliance only specifies if that kindred, as constituted, is then an Alliance kindred. Kindreds can have whomever they choose in the kindred, then they must live with the consequences of that decision.

In short, I'd try to preserve the common law above the fray of old and day-to-day controversy.

A controversial law isn't a law. It's a debating point. Laws are to be observed.

If you get too specific, it's not common law. It's biblical law, and I'd rather give that one a miss.