One of the strange turns in Baha'i legal history was the reversal
of the Bab's progressive consent decree:

  It hath been laid down in the Bayan that marriage
  is dependent upon the consent of both parties.
  Desiring to establish love, unity and harmony
  amidst Our servants, We have conditioned it, once
  the couple's wish is known, upon the permission of
  their parents, lest enmity and rancour should
  arise amongst them.
                          Kitab-i-Aqdas

In making this pronouncement, Baha'u'llah returned to parents
the final say in the choice of spouses.

Though this seems to be a regressive move to the modern observer,
Baha'is are compelled to find something progressive in it,
and thus take an orthodox stance.

I can say from personal observations that Baha'u'llah's
consent law is one of the most divisive Baha'i laws.  Because
parents are obligated to either approve or disaprove, and
not permitted to abstain, they are effectively obligated to
meddle.

The Bab made a point of liberating marriage from the power plays
of parents.
For better or for worse,
Baha'u'llah reversed a radical move by the Bab,
perhaps because he felt the Bab had gone too far.

Baha'u'llah didn't do anything original by outlawing arranged
marriages.  He was merely adopting Babi law in part.
In fact the Bab is the one who made the big move here,
whereas Baha'u'llah took a more traditional approach.

The Bab was more of a radical reformer.
Of course he got a little extreme in some aspects,
such as in book burning and holy war, but he was truer
catalyst for change.

When Baha'is defend such rigid and archaic laws, they sound like
Mormons defending polygamy, which is another difficult subject for
educated Baha'is.  The bottom line is that Baha'u'llah's laws were
traditional Muslim laws, with a few modifications.  The Aqdas,
indeed, reads like an ammendment to the Qur'an. No big controversy,
though. The Qur'an was a very important book to Baha'u'llah. Moreso
even than it was to the Bab.