Yes, the stupid thing with written laws is that one then dances around the interpretation and does not agree on it, so the whole contentious matter is handed over to someone who calls himself a judge and is supposed to pronounce justice over the opponents.

I am more in favour of settling the matter among ourselves in a situation that arises spontaneously, without having to look for someone afterwards to take sides. But situationally just decision-making is of course only possible in a community of people in which there is no lying and cheating.

I repeatedly deal with divorcing spouses and they usually first ask what the law says, but not how they themselves want to divorce and what would be fair for themselves and the other person from their own perspective. Everyone has a really good sense of what is fair. However, this sense is compromised by what you find in terms of legal grounds and that then distorts the whole separation process.

I usually say that if the separators are unable to agree among themselves, then they would be decided over both their heads, which may not please either of them. And do they really want that?

Sometimes it is possible for the separating couples to realise that if they do not want to come under the thumb of the authorities, they had better not involve anyone else who, at worst, would parasitically profit from their misery.

Are there any findings about the Vikings regarding the choice of their partners?