A Proper Framework for Marriage.

(Part 1)

How Marriage Used To Be Established
There are many signs indicating how the initiation of marriage used to be different. As mentioned before, there are no mentions of government involvement and required clerical involvement in Scripture. Marriage, was an arrangement made between families (and even individuals) which was consummated in public by mutual consent and intent, and made by direct choice of the man.

There are numerous examples to indicate this: Issac directs Jacob to seek out Laban to take a wife of his daughters and Jacob arranges a price with Laban, ending up with both his daughters by beguilement, Esau seeks wives of the family of Ishmael, Samson asks of his family to gain a wife of the Philistines.

There are indications that the father was to approve under his family headship of a marriage – this is seen in modern practice by the father giving away the bride at the wedding. A daughter being able to go to the State instead of her own father for approval is another rebellion against “patriarchal oppression”. This is another move to destroy the authority of fathers by replacing them with the State in the form of welfare and child support.

We can look to Cana and to Jesus’ own stories and many other examples, both Scriptural and traditional for more clues. While it is impossible to delve into the typical conditions of marriage since they were so varied, Edersheim writes of the traditional Jewish practice in establishing conditions of marriage:

From the Mishnah (Bab. B. x. 4) we also learn that there were regular Shitre Erusin, or writings of bethrothal, drawn up by the authorities (the costs paid by the bridegroom). These stipulated the mutual obligations, dowry, and other points on which the parties had agreed. (1)

According to Rabbinical law certain formalities were requisite to make a bethrothal legally valid. These consisted either in handing to a woman, directly or through messengers, a piece of money, however small, or else a letter, provided it were in each case expressly stated before witnesses, that the man thereby intended to espouse the woman as his wife. The marriage followed after a longer or shorter interval, the limits of which, however, were fixed by law. The ceremony itself consisted in leading the bride into the house of the bridegroom, with certain formalities, mostly dating from very ancient times. (2)

The rules of colonial America are similar in their implication:

Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.

So as the historical and Biblical process the following:
1. The man announces his intention to court to marry a woman to her father and family.
2. The man or the man’s family works out conditions with the woman’s family to affect the marriage. Permission is obtained from the woman’s father and optionally the man’s parents.
3. Upon agreement, the expression of marriage is made before witnesses.
4. Culturally, after a short period of time, a public celebration is made where the agreement and consent to it is made public. The couple calls themselves husband and wife, and the public acknowledges them as such.
5. Thereafter, the couple goes to the marriage bedchambers (the bridegroom’s house) in consummation of the marriage (i.e. the honeymoon).

Note at no time does intimate and specific government or Church intrusion (i.e. forcing the church building as a venue or a church official as witness) come into play.

History of Marriage Licenses
As mentioned here, the origin of such licenses is racially motivated. Miscegenation laws banned interracial sex and interracial marriage. As it goes on to say:

When the government needed finances, some states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. So in other words, they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal. . . Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license, seeing that they could make a profit off of the Union of Marriage. So in 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws, and by 1935, all states required licenses except Maryland, which soon followed shortly thereafter.

It’s interesting how coincidental this timing is with the establishment of communism and the collectivist involvement of the State in the lives of individuals as a practice.

Analysis: Marriage 2.0 – The Chicken or the Egg?
In analyzing the change to marriage-at-large effected by Marxism, some questions come up: How such a change could have been affected? Why is it that so few Christians protest the personal and intimate intrusion of government into their marriages? It’s amazing how silent (and in denial) the traditionalists are regarding these things, even to the point of supporting marriage, despite the number of evils perpetuated in the name of marriage today.

The place of God in marriage is replaced with the State. The place of authority that the husband holds is replaced with the State, so in effect the State becomes the head of the wife and the husband is turfed off to third-wheel status only useful for a sperm donation and his working ability. Marriage becomes unimportant, so daughters can go off and chase after The Feminist Merit Badge and be on the Slut Carousel with impunity, yet the sons get chided for not manning-up and marrying the sluts. The State institutes divorce for any and every reason so she can throw her husband aside when she gets bored with him and receive fabulous cash and prizes as a result. The wife can remarry (multiple times!) after her frivorces. The State can unilaterally direct the couple to do with their children what it wishes against the couple’s wishes (example: forced public schooling – home schooling will become illegal sooner or later) at pain of kidnapping the child and prison time. All of this is accepted by the traditionalists. But the State defines that marriage can be between two men or two women and now the traditionalists finally complain.

It seems there is no concern paid to any of these factors in traditionalist circles. The fact that there is acceptance and even support of Marriage 2.0 within the traditionalist Christians is telling. The fact that these things are even accepted as part of “traditional marriage” and thought to be part of Godly Biblical marriage is telling. The power of tradition rears its ugly head. How could the establishment and acceptance of Marxist feminist marriage as the norm have happened so easily? And why do the traditionalists exhibit such blindness to these things?

The only conclusion that can be taken out of this is that Marxist feminist marriage literally *is* an expression of traditional marriage. Such an arrangement wouldn’t have been possible without the foundations laid by the previous feminist system. Modern Marxist feminism presumes female-centric moral-authority and male sacrifice at its core. It did nothing to build these things. They were already present from the previous form of feminism in place in spades, and the traditionalists are ready and on-call to call for these things repeatedly. After all, they have done so for so long they know no other way. No one who supports female supremacism will upset the apple cart, no matter how wicked and vile things get.

The action of traditionalist redefinition of doctrine to reflect the ways of men explains the actions of Mark Driscoll, Focus on the Family, and others. When doctrine is changed in acceptance of the ways of the world by Christians instead of resisting and not accepting the ways of the world, there are definite troubles.

Solutions?
The most obvious is direct repentance of the action of rendering what is rightfully God’s over to Caesar. In other words, justify God and don’t justify men. As many realize, this will not wholly restore Biblical marriage, as it will retain the female-supremacist aspect of old traditionalism. But it will be a kick in the right direction. This is not “opposing marriage” or “burning marriage down”, but destroying an idol (repeating what has happened in Scripture many times – they weren’t justified or “re-purposed for God’s glory”, they were destroyed). As Anonymous writes:

the smart play will eventually happen: end State sanctioned marriage. It’ll be one royal mess, but what does exist of the TradCons will hopefully go that way. It’d solve a whole lot of problems with the current system anyway.
. . .
Christians and others who want to marry in religious ceremonies, can certainly still do so, and the legal aspects of life together (property, etc) can be handled contractually. As to the rest… as Mel Gibson playing Wallace said of the English fort in Braveheart: “Burn it.’

Anonymous is being much too melodramatic, but the removal of the State out of marriage is a very possible thing, though the State will not go quietly (as evidenced by the attitude towards common-law marriages). As I wrote over here:

But for today’s day and age you have to draw up a contract. Make it completely devoid of State interest (two parties, not three) and have the parties agree to it if they wish to be married. If there are Christian denominational interests (either in the parties involved or the venue), make an approved denominational contract (even call it a covenant to be perfectly honest) in line with Scripture. But no governmental intrusion – the contract is to be observed as written with complete freedom on the part of the participants or the venue to agree to all the terms.

There’s an example of such a marriage covenant here. Do it in a witnessed way before the community. And be sure the community supports it so the members involved live up to their vows.

Real God-honoring marriage is possible, if only people will make it happen.

(1) Sketches of Jewish Social Life Alfred Edersheim page 137. (2) ibid page 139.

Link Farm Of Stuff I didn’t link to above
The Purpose of the Marriage License – The History of Marriage Licenses – Burn it down? – British Columbia’s Bernakified Fiat Marriage – GBFM: Marriage has been butthexed – The Triumph of Institutional Marriage – Wikipedia: Marriage License – Taking Marriage Private – Should Christians Enter Into State-Based Civil Marriages?