> > Intermarriage is usually meant as a marriage between 2 cousins or > > such. I had an aunt who married a cousin who had been adopted into > > the family but it was considered an intermarriage none the less. > > Hope this helps clarify for all. Sincerely P.Bizjak > > "Intermarriage: In the popular sense, this term denotes the > contracting of a marriage relation between two persons considered as > members of different nations, tribes, families, etc., as, between > the soverigns of two different countries, between an American and an > alien, between Indians of different tribes, between the scions of > different clans or families. But, in law, it is sometimes used (and > with propriety) to empahsize the mutuality of the marriage contract > and as importing a reciprocal engagement by which each of the > parties "marries" the other. Thus, in a pleading, instead of > averring that "the plaintiff was married to the defendant," it would > be proper to allege that "the parties intermarried" at such a time > and place." pg 952, Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed, 1951. > > Note, for the record, that the legal definitions specifically > EXCLUDE in-family marriages. > > Cheryl <singhals@erols.com> Thus the answer to the original question is as Joan and I have said it was. In court or other legal documents, such as a marriage bond, in the early 1800s, is that intermarriage = marriage. In many jurisdictions in this time period all marriages are described as being intermarriages. No matter how many dictionary definitions you can find, It would really be stretching it to suppose that all marriages recorded in a given place and time period are either marriages of persons from different groups (e.g., Catholic-Protestant) or related persons (cousins). They are simply "marriages." Richard "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>