Marriage--Religious or Civil

 The purpose of marriage has been discussed in an earlier post and will not be discussed at great length.  

I have been asked how marriage has changed over the years?  I could not give a good answer, so I took the time to research, which I found some interesting information. I am not trying to change your thinking on marriage; only show how it has changed and no longer is the simple act of consent between a man and woman ordained by God.

 Marriage from the time of Christ until the eleventh century was by consent of a man and woman. From the second half of the eleventh century, medieval Latin theologians and canonists wrestled with several questions related to sexual relations and marriage. Marriage is, characteristically, one of the avenues by which a society—especially a religious or holy community— attempts to define its boundaries. In this effort, church authorities had, for centuries, proscribed both marriage and sexual relations between Jews and Christians. They sought control over Christian spouses' marital relations by proscribing sexual contact before receiving communion, during Lent, or during a woman's pregnancy or menstrual cycle. They had also attempted to eliminate marriage among the clergy, with occasional success, as part of an effort to define and control marital unions more effectively.  

 The bottom line was the Church wanted control over marriage. Looking at the custom of marriage for several hundred years, there were informal unions and clandestine marriages. The original marriage was by God alone. No church or government was required; it was by consent between a man and a woman.  

 Over the years, marriage has changed dramatically. Some Christians believe we must adhere to the social customs of the day. This would make same-sex marriage acceptable as society, and the law has changed. Many fail to understand marriage is between a man and woman as instituted by God. Social norms, church control, and government laws do not make marriage.  

 Informal Unions  

Since the only requirement for a valid indissoluble union was the freely given consent of the man and woman, marriage could be contracted at any time and any place. The possibilities and dangers of this type of union were a concern to the Church. Pope Alexander III's adoption of the consensual theory aimed to minimize the issues. The informal unions continued to preoccupy the legal problems in the Church all through the Middle Ages, ending in the sixteenth century when the Council of Trent (1545-1563) prohibited such unions altogether. Again, this was all about control and had nothing to do with how God viewed marriage.  

 Clandestine Unions  

Secular society needed to know who was married to oversee property transfers and inheritance provisions for legal spouses and legitimate children. The Church was concerned with enforcing sexual morality and required to know if the couple was married to enforce their laws against adultery and fornication. Since marriage was a sacrament, the Church needed to understand that no impediment barred the couple's exchange of consent, and they fully understood the nature of their actions.  

 Defining Informal Marriages.  

Two types of unions were included under the category of clandestine marriage. A union occurred informally, without the usual ecclesiastical solemnities and marriage liturgy. At this sort of wedding, the couple was not necessarily alone. Clandestine marriages might happen at home, with friends and family gathered around, or even in the local tavern or other public venues. On the other hand, secret marriages occurred without the knowledge and presence of others. Because of the absence of witnesses, these unions were the most difficult to prove in court.  

 Exchanging Consent  

Although a marriage occurred clandestinely, it did not mean that the union was entered into thoughtlessly or casually. The evidence of some court cases reveals that couples used clandestine marriage to evade disapproving parents or avoid arranged marriages. However, in other cases, the parents approved of the exchange of consent or were even involved in it—another indication that clandestine marriages were not always secret. Frequently, they were private unions achieved without formal recourse to the Church and its representatives but with the full participation and blessing of family and friends. There is evidence that couples took some care with their exchange of consent. Sometimes a senior man in the community, the employer of the bride or groom, or an older relative supervised the exchange of consent to ensure the couple used the correct formula and that the present consent was unambiguous. Court records indicate that a couple might have clasped hands as they repeated the words of consent. The man frequently reported that he had endowed the woman with some small gift or token or placed a ring on her finger. There is also an example of the couple kissing through a garland of flowers after exchanging consent.  

 False Promises  

Secret marriages made women vulnerable to men who sought sexual relations by making false marriage promises and later denying them. Similarly, if a couple married legitimately in secret and one subsequently married publicly, the public union, not the secret marriage, would stand. This unhappy situation resulted from the belief that if an external witness could prove consent had been exchanged, this marriage must take precedence over a secret consent that was unprovable or ambiguous. In such cases, a person married without witnesses was condemned to live in perpetual adultery because the secret union could not be proven.  

 Some would argue that a secret marriage would allow the husband to walk away from commitment. Many "legal" marriages have the husband walking away from responsibility through the legal means of divorce. 

 Avoiding Control  

With the option of clandestine marriage, people had a mechanism to avoid parental and feudal control and marry the spouse of their choice. Surviving records for marriage cases brought before the ecclesiastical courts, especially in England, show that people most frequently brought suits to have their marriages declared valid or restore their conjugal rights. A considerable proportion of the cases involved informal marriages in which present consent was alleged, but there was difficulty proving it had been exchanged.  

 Reasons for Clandestine Marriage  

The consensual doctrine and valid clandestine marriages made the consent of one's parents or Lord unnecessary. This innovation was significant when people believed that children should obey their parents and vassals should abide by their lords. Furthermore, marriage had a sacramental aspect and a social function. During the Middle Ages, marriage had significant familial, feudal, and financial ramifications at all levels of society. At the highest levels of society, it could also have political and military implications. 

 Consequently, secular authorities considered the personal inclinations of either spouse to be subordinate to the broader considerations of land, lineage, and Lord. Another reason for a clandestine marriage was the expense of a religious ceremony. Although the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) forbade priests to charge for performing ecclesiastical services such as marriage, in practice parishioners made voluntary donations for such liturgical functions. Consequently, for some couples, clandestine marriage may have been a more affordable alternative to the formal solemnization of their union.  

 Unintended Marriages.  

There was another danger involved in clandestine marriage. If people were joking and playacting, it was conceivable that they could marry one another without intending to do so. For example, one moralist warned that the marriage ceremony should "be decently celebrated, with reverence, not with laughter and ribaldry, not in taverns or at public drinking and feastings. Let no man place a ring made of rushes or any worthless or precious material on the hand of a woman in jest that he may more easily gain her favors lest, in thinking to jest, the bonds of marriage be tied. Henceforth let no pledge to contract marriage be given except in the presence of a priest and of three or four respectable people called together for that purpose." The moralists' warnings notwithstanding, there are many examples of consent being exchanged in all manner of unlikely places, including under an ash tree, in bed, in a garden, in a field, in a storeroom, in a blacksmith's shop, and a kitchen. People exchanged consent where and when it was convenient.  

 Unchecked Practice  

The Church sought to strengthen and extend its control over the marriage ceremony throughout the Middle Ages. This process was an unsuccessful attempt to eliminate private and secret marriages. However, throughout the Middle Ages, couples continued to avail themselves of the autonomy offered to them by valid clandestine marriages. Even today, some practice marriage by consent, making it no less marriage in the eyes of God. 

  Quaker Marriage Practices  

Quakers believed non-Quaker marriage ceremonies were improper because a human was presented as God's authority, vested with the power to perform a marriage. They felt that only God could form so sacred a union.  

Men and women chose their spouses, and parents could not force children into unions. Nonetheless, a man and woman were required to have the approval of parents and their meetings to marry. Couples might spend months corresponding and visiting before committing themselves to marriage. Companionship and friendship were viewed as the basis of marriage. Romance and pleasure could have a role, but only in the context of shared devotion to God. Friends believed that the wife and husband should support the other's spiritual growth. Both partners were also expected to do their part to contribute to their household and raise their children as Quakers.  

 For the right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priests' or magistrates'; for it is God's ordinance and not man's; and therefore, Friends cannot consent that they should join them together: for we marry none; it is the Lord's work, and we are but witnesses. George Fox, 1669  

 At the beginning of the Quaker, Movement marriage was by consent as done during the Middle Ages. However, this changed as some early Friends felt that the law should recognize their marriages, and they instituted the witnessing of a certificate by all present. Historically it was argued that Quaker marriage was invalid under canon law, but Friends' marriages were tested in English civil courts and found lawful. The Marriage Act of 1753 explicitly exempted Quakers and Jews from the statutory regulation of all other marriages in England and Wales. This legal validity with separate status and registration for marriages under the auspices of the Society of Friends has been reaffirmed by successive Marriage Acts in England and Wales.  

 So, how is marriage to be accepted in the Church today? No-fault divorce changed the American culture of marriage. So did the sexual revolution. Now proponents of gay rights redefine marriage at an even more fundamental level. What is to be done? As a post-biblical vision of sex, gender, and marriage gains the upper hand in our society, should our religious institutions get out of marriage? Should priests, pastors, and rabbis renounce their roles as deputies of state authority in marriage? Or should we sustain the close links between religious and civil marriage? 

What will happen when the state regulates all marriages, and the Church has no say in the matter? Will we go back to marriage by consent?