In ancient Israel, marriage was a private contract between two individuals or two families. That contract is called the Ketubah. The groom and his father drafted a Ketubah with the assistance of a rabbi to ensure that it was in harmony with the Law of Moses. The bride and her father had to agree to the contract for the betrothal to be established. The wedding didn't involve an agent of the state or government. The wedding was planned and officiated by the groom and/or the father of the groom. Both families were expected to be in attendance. The bride's father then gave the bride to the groom and his family. This was witnessed by both families. The couple would then retreat to the Chuppah and consummate the marriage, making it recognized by both families. This Ketubah was more than a contract, it was a covenant. An agreement between the couple and God alone. The Ketubah prescribed all the expectations of the marriage and even various clauses and terms for divorce. So each Ketubah was unique and reflected the intentions of each family unit. There wasn't a one size fits all social contract. Divorce was handled in accordance to the law of Moses, as interpreted by the groom and a rabbi. Women didn't have the right to file for divorce. Upon a wife's violation of the Ketubah, the groom could have a rabbi draft a "get" (divorce decree). It took a few hours to draft and the rabbi typically charged what would be equal to about $300 in today's currency. This document permitted the man to send a woman out of his house and allowed her to remarry within the community. The wife and her family typically kept the dowry as her insurance should she be divorced. No child support or spousal support was ordered. To this day, the Jewish faith requires a couple to have a Ketubah for a Jewish marriage to be established, even if the couple is married under "civil law". And even if a Jewish couple has a "civil divorce decree", they must seek the "get" (Jewish divorce decree) to be considered truly divorced in the Jewish community. Thus marriage, as understood by Israel, was a private contractual agreement between the couple and a covenant with God.
Early Christianity had no form of wedding ceremony or procedure. In fact, the early church blessed marriages "ex post facto". This allowed the church to bless Roman marriage and Jewish marriages. In fact, the church even blessed a couple's marriage based on the couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed. This was standard up until the 1200's when the church began to require a posting in the parish prior to the marriage or to have a priest "witness" the marriage. Soon, during the 1500's, the church required priests to "validate" or establish the marriage through the authority of the church.
Protestants rejected the notion that the church had any real authority over marriage and then handed this authority to municipal governments. So, civil government has essentially been the authority over marriage for a little over the past 500 years.
Most civil governments began requiring "marriage licenses". The primary reason was to grant the state authority to set the terms and conditions of the marriage. This authority was used to deny mixed couples the right to marry in the United States up until the SCOTUS shot down such statutes as being un-Constitutional in Lovings vs. Virginia. These terms and conditions normally come into play today only should the couple seek a divorce.
When marriage licenses began to be issued by civil governments and municipalities in Europe and the Untied States many groups protested against the state's authority over marriage by establishing their own marital customs, denying the state involvement. One such group is the Society of Friends, better known as the Quakers. George Fox, founder of the Quaker movement stated:
"The right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priest's or magistrate's; for it is God's ordinance and not man's...we marry none; it is the Lord's work, and we are but witnesses." ~ George Fox, 1669
Britain passed special tort laws to recognize both Quaker and Jewish marriages outside of the boundaries of the municipal Anglican marriage system.
In the United States most Quaker marriages were recognized under common law, as marriage was regarded as a "common right" or "natural right". However, as states began to drop common law marriage statues the pressure has been on for Quakers to embrace marriage licensing. A primary issue here is that Quakers do not have state licensed clergy to act as "agents of the state" by signing marriage licenses. Also Quakers continue to feel that marriage isn't the domain of the state and that it is an entirely private arrangement between a couple and their God. Here are some excerpts from "Faith and Practice":
"Quaker Marriage Procedure"...
"Marriage is a sacred commitment of two people to love one another in faithful partnership with the expectation that the relationship will mature and be mutually enriching. Friends know that marriage depends on the inner experiences of the couple who marry and not on any external service or words. Thus, the ceremony in which the couple enter into this commitment is performed by the couple alone, in the presence of God, the families, and the worshiping community. Both the solemnity and the joy of the occasion are enhanced by its simplicity."
"While most Friends’ marriage ceremonies conform to civil law, couples who do not want, or are not eligible to contract a legal marriage occasionally ask for a ceremony of commitment or a wedding under the care of the Meeting. The Religious Society of Friends has long asserted its freedom to conduct under divine leading marriage ceremonies not conforming to civil law."
So, within the Quaker community many couples have marriages that are not recognized by the civil government. And it is viewed by the Quakers as entirely their prerogative under God to have it this way.
With the "government" rewriting divorce law with the adoption of "no fault" divorce statutes and establishing the legal recognition of "gay marriage" many deeply conservative Christians have begun to rethink their commitment to "civil marriage". Some have opted to bless private unions in "commitment ceremonies" or ceremonies of "Christian Matrimony" and leave the choice to be married under "civil law" entirely up to the couple. There is a movement of Southern Baptists doing this in Texas, a church advocating for this in Colorado (Mercy Seat), most Christian libertarians, and even a wide variety of Evangelicals who have signed, "The Marriage Pledge" (link:
The Marriage Pledge).
So, yes, more and more churches are looking into this. And it is a growing movement. It resonates within our culture because nearly half of American couples have opted to live together because they feel that "civil marriage" as it is today offers little security and is essentially a "high stakes gamble".
At the end of the day... it's now up to individual pastors as to what unions they wish to bless. Will they bless only those in "civil marriages" or will they also begin blessing couples married in the eyes of God?
The evolution of marriage continues...
