# When Did Marriage Become a Civil Matter?



## brandonadams (Oct 19, 2008)

Wikipedia states the following under "Marriage"



> *State recognition*
> 
> In the early modern period, John Calvin and his Protestant colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed \"The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage\"[19] for recognition. That was the first state involvement in marriage.[citation needed]


Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(citation 19 is Amazon.com: From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition (Family, Religion, and Culture): John Witte Jr.: Books)

Does anyone have any more/better information?

Thanks,


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 19, 2008)

Are you asking about the specific citation or the question in the title of the thread? Marriage has always been a Creation Ordinance and this is why Churches do not require that people become "re-married" when they join their particular communion even if they have been married by a Justice of the Peace.


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 20, 2008)

The quote suggests that prior to Calvin's Geneva, state recognition was not necessary and that it was solely a function of the church. Is that accurate?

To state it another way, was there ever a time when the civil state was not involved with marriage at all?


----------



## TimV (Oct 20, 2008)

I'm having a foggy moment. Who was it that posted a useful paper he wrote on the subject the other day on the subject?


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 28, 2008)

Anyone know what paper Tim is thinking of? I'd really love to read it. I wasn't able to find much by searching the board.


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 28, 2008)

brandonadams said:


> Anyone know what paper Tim is thinking of? I'd really love to read it. I wasn't able to find much by searching the board.



Brandon,

I think Tim is referring to my post on another marriage thread.

I have the documents in PDF format, but I think that they were too big to send via email, so I faxed them.

The document is a historical study of marriage laws in America. In general, the American puritans and pilgrims, as well as the Dutch, believed that marriage was a civil contract, rather than a sacrament. The study basically deals with the American view of marrying.

The reasoning that supported this civil practice was:

1. Ruth is the one example of a "wedding ceremony" and it is civil

2. Papists had corrupted the marriage service by their inventions, and therefore, they were careful to avoid the "churchiness" of medieval weddings.

Anywho, I will need to fax the paper or mail it to you. PM me. Oh, and I didn't write it; I just enjoyed reading it.

Cheers,


----------



## KMK (Oct 28, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Are you asking about the specific citation or the question in the title of the thread? Marriage has always been a Creation Ordinance and this is why Churches do not require that people become "re-married" when they join their particular communion even if they have been married by a Justice of the Peace.



As a Creation Ordinance, marriage would supercede the authority of both family, church and state is what I am thinking. In other words,, marriage is a covenant between man and wife with each other and with God Himself. A marriage is not nullified because a family or a church or a state does not recognize it. Thoughts????


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 28, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> brandonadams said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone know what paper Tim is thinking of? I'd really love to read it. I wasn't able to find much by searching the board.
> ...



How big is the pdf? I've sent and received some pretty big documents over email. As in hundreds of pages.

It seems that would take quit a while on a fax machine.


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 29, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> How big is the pdf? I've sent and received some pretty big documents over email. As in hundreds of pages.
> 
> It seems that would take quit a while on a fax machine.



Vic,

Three documents of approximately 10 megs each.

Cheers,


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 29, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> > How big is the pdf? I've sent and received some pretty big documents over email. As in hundreds of pages.
> ...



gmail can handle 20 megs per email. It's worth a look instead of faxing.

Maximum attachment size - Help Center


----------



## KMK (Oct 29, 2008)

According to Daniel J Ford in his book, "In The Name of God, Amen", Puritan marriage, as a civil union, was based largely on the Hebrew tradition. He cites a work by Thomas Goodwin entitled, "Moses and Aaron".


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 29, 2008)

KMK said:


> According to Daniel J Ford in his book, "In The Name of God, Amen", Puritan marriage, as a civil union, was based largely on the Hebrew tradition. He cites a work by Thomas Goodwin entitled, "Moses and Aaron".



Goodwin's treatise is available online here:

Moses and Aaron: Civil and ... - Google Book Search


----------



## KMK (Oct 29, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > According to Daniel J Ford in his book, "In The Name of God, Amen", Puritan marriage, as a civil union, was based largely on the Hebrew tradition. He cites a work by Thomas Goodwin entitled, "Moses and Aaron".
> ...



Interesting! On page 231, Goodwin says this:

The second thing considerable in their betrothings, is to enquire the manner of their contracting, which might be done in Israel three ways. FIrst by a peice of money. Secondly, by writing. Thirdly, by copulation, and *all these in the presensce of witnesses.*

The fact that witnesses were needed established the civil recognition of the betrothal. (How many, I wonder, chose to publicize their betrothal through method number three?)


----------



## TimV (Oct 29, 2008)

> The second thing considerable in their betrothings, is to enquire the manner of their contracting, which might be done in Israel three ways. FIrst by a peice of money. Secondly, by writing. Thirdly, by copulation, and all these in the presensce of witnesses.
> 
> The fact that witnesses were needed established the civil recognition of the betrothal. (How many, I wonder, chose to publicize their betrothal through method number three?)



That was still fresh in the European mind. Even royalty depending on the time and country would have witnesses around a sometimes lightly curtained marriage bed. I can't think of a Biblical example of that, though.


----------

