A History of Marriage – Part 1

This is the first in a series of articles I’m doing on how our modern marriage came to be.  Our modern marriage system would not be recognised by our forefathers.


The following are a series of articles on this subject:

Surprising History of Holy Matrimony:


FACT: In the Roman Catholic Church the presence of a priest was not required until the Council of Trent. I point this out so that the reader may see that the requirements for marriage have not always been as they are now. Those marriages were considered quite valid. Once again, the matter and form of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony is the consent offered and the consent accepted one to the other. The Church is only witness to this.

“If a tree falls down in the forest and there is no one there to hear it crash, does it still make a noise?” This question seems silly. We want to say: “Of course it does!” To say that there is no sound simply because there was no witness is absurd.

Now, to use my analogy: “If a couple gets married outside the sanctuary do they still make a sound, Father?” Are they really married?

Try this: “Did those two Protestants with the indissoluble marriage make a sound, Father? There were no Roman Catholic clergy there, right?”

If you are beginning to feel that there are some contradictions here you are beginning to get the point!

In the Roman Catholic Church, the presence of a priest was not required in many parts of the world (including most of North America) until the 1900’s. All of those marriages were considered valid. So why is the church now trying to tell couples that their marriage outside the sanctuary is unacceptable when less than a century ago they did not even require a priest to be there?

I have perform marriages outside a sanctuary. I allow the priests under my jurisdiction to do this as well.


The Sordid History Of The Marriage License In America

From the wiki:

A marriage license (spelled licence in British English) is a document issued either by a church or state authority authorising a couple to marry. The procedure for obtaining a licence varies between countries and has changed over time. Marriage licences began to be issued in the Middle Ages to permit a marriage which would otherwise be illegal (for instance, if the necessary period of notice for the marriage had not been given).

So the license was a way to regulate who could marry. How was that applied in America (until reform came)?

In the early part of the twentieth century, the requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. By the 1920s 38 states used the mechanism. These laws have since been declared invalid by the Courts.

So the idea was to maintain racial purity among whites. These days it is all about sexual purity. Thus the big broo ha ha about gays getting married.

I take no position on the matter one way or the other. I just thought a little history was in order. Eric has also written on the subject here and here among other places.


[It’s interesting that Wikipedia has since removed that information from their article on marriage licenses.]

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Birth Certificate Truth from macquirelatory.com

Birth Certificate Truth
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is one of a number of uniform acts that have been promulgated in conjunction with efforts to harmonize the law of sales and other commercial transactions in all 50 states within the United States of America. The Uniform Commercial Code is looked upon as the bible in the world of business. Under Caeser of Rome, it was established that all nations in the empire that do any form of business, should all play on a level field, but what is not told is that the UCC is based directly on Vatican Canon Law, of the Roman Canon Law, which means, its regulations are under the Roman Catholic Church. Now, you maybe wondering what this has to do with birth certificates, so let’s break down the origin of birth certificates.
Question: What is a berth? To come into or dock at a wharf such as when a ship comes into a dock, it arrives. So consequently, when a ship pulls into a port, it pulls in and stops, that is called its berth, because the ship has now arrived. So because it is on the laws of the high seas, it is governed by the UCC Commercial Law. So when the ship pulls in to it’s berth, the first thing the captain must do is to present a certificate of manifest to the port authorities. What is a certificate of manifest? It is a document listing a ship’s contents, cargo, crew, and passengers. So whatever the ship brings in at berth, the captain has to present a certificate of manifest showing the identity and value of the items on the ship. Now consequently, when people are born, they come out of their mother’s water, therefore they must have a birth certificate, which is a certificate of manifest, because the people are considered a corporation owned item, they are a human resource. This goes back to the German Nazi concept, that every human coming out of their mother’s water must be birthed, and therefore the people have to have a certificate of manifest, to see who this individual is and how much they are going to make for the government in their New World Order.
So, since the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933, all new money has to be borrowed into existence. All states started issuing serial-numbered, certificated “warehouse receipts” for births and marriages in order to pledge the people as collateral against those loans and municipal bonds taken out with the Federal Reserve’s banks. The “Full faith and credit” of the American people is said to be that which back the nation’s debt. That simply means the American people’s ability to labor and pay back that debt. In order to catalog its laborers, the government needed an efficient, methodical system of tracking its property to that end. Humans today are looked upon merely as resources – “human resources,” that is. Why do you think when you call to see if a company is hiring, you have to go through a division known as Human Resource? The people are resources to the government, their birth certificates are a security on the New York Stock Exchange, which is why if you look at all birth certificate’s in America, it will say at the bottom this is printed on security paper, do not accept if not on full color security paper. At the bottom, you will always have a series of numbers, red numbers printed on the birth certificate, in which those numbers are a security stock exchange number on the World Stock Exchange, in which the American people are worth money to the International Bank that bought the government in the 1930’s.
Governmental assignment of a dollar value to the heads of citizens in America began on July 14, 1862, when President Lincoln offered 6 percent interest bearing-bonds to states who freed their slaves on a “per head” basis. See the government knows that they can only extract so much money out of the economy, so their idea is to bankrupt private owners so that the banks who are behind this syndicate become the owners of all the assets in this country. That’s the real scheme; that’s the real motive. By encouraging Congress to spend money it doesn’t have, Congress has to turn around and “lien” on American labor and American private property for collateral. See they do that by fraudulent conversion of birth certificates, for example. Doctors, who are franchisees of the state, are obliged to sign birth certificates and forward them on to the Secretary of State in Sacramento. They make certified copies and forward those birth certificates to the Department of Commerce in Washington, D.C. The Department of Commerce does the same thing: they make certified copies and forward them on to the International Monetary Fund in Brussels, Belgium.
Now this is the center of the hub of the banking syndicate and they are, of course, loaning these huge sums to various governments around the world, including the Congress of the United States. The Congress needs something for collateral, and what they use for collateral are these birth certificates. They get treated as certificates in equity which mature on the 18th birthday of the person whose name appears on the birth certificate. The bank then keeps track of these and uses the number that any particular nation has available, as collateral on the international debt, as “performance units” on the international debt. These certificates in equity end up being regarded as “performance units” on the international debt. The more of those you have, the more money you can borrow. It’s like this: the more collateral I have, the more money I can borrow from banks and the more I can secure. So, governments are securing their international debt by “liening” on the persons and property of their citizens. They’re doing this on a massive scale, and it’s technically a fraudulent conversion of the birth certificate because, if they did that with your birth certificate, they never told you they were doing it. They never told you they were obtaining a lien on your person and starting a third-party debt that you’re responsible for. You had no meaningful choice in the matter, which makes it an “unconscionable contract” by definition.
Think of it very simply, as walking into a department store and saying to the salesman, “I really like that refrigerator over there, I want to buy it, ship it to my home tomorrow, and send the bill to, say, Willy Brown.” So the next day, the refrigerator ends up in your garage, and the bill ends up in Willy Brown’s mail. Willy Brown opens his mail and says, “What’s this, Sears? One refrigerator, $800? What is this? I didn’t buy this. I’m not a party to this transaction. I didn’t even know about it. Why are they billing me? There must be a mistake here.” Well, this is kind of like what is happening now. In this example, the department store is the Federal Reserve. They’re supplying Federal Reserve Notes, right? Willy Brown is the American people, and I — the one who went in there and bought the refrigerator in the first place — I represent Congress. And I’m saying, “Don’t send the bill to me, send it to the American people. And you can lien on their property, by the way. You can use our police, we’ll enforce it for you; we’ll extract the money.” So that’s the fraud the government and Obama is keeping from the American people.
The fraud is that Congress bankrupted the U.S. Treasury and turned all their gold over to the Federal Reserve banks, which are not federal government agencies.
The Federal Reserve is a “municipal corporation” created by an act of Congress, but it’s still a corporation. And all that gold is now in their hands. But there wasn’t enough to discharge the debt that had accumulated up to 1933. They had to go into bankruptcy to discharge the rest of the debt. They’re using standard federal bankruptcy rules for this, but the creditors, of course, are in charge. And they’re back there telling Congress, “Go ahead, continue spending more money that you don’t have, because we know we’ll take it out of the land and the labor of the American people, ultimately.” And that’s what’s going on. Look at the current economic situation, the government is using Obama to push this idea concept of stimulus checks as a way for slowing down inflation, creating jobs, and giving the American people more money to spend. Now to the average puppet, this doesn’t seem like a bad idea, but what the government doesn’t tell the people is that, in the process of them giving these stimulus checks for the American people to spend more money, it will only devalue the American Dollar, and the banks will close up, because how can you spend more in a recession to boost the economy? Therefore by the banks closing up, it will force the American people into a one way electronic spending money system, that will be monitored and administered by the government, forcing the people into compliance with their New World Order.
In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act created the birth “registration” or what we now know as the “birth certificate.” It was known as the “Maternity Act” and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for “other purposes.” One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. What it really did was create a federal birth registry which exists today, creating “federal children.” This government, under the doctrine of “Parens Patriae,” now legislates for American children as if they are owned by the federal government. Through the public school enrollment process and continuing license requirements for most aspects of daily life, these children grow up to be adults indoctrinated into the process of asking for “permission” from the government imposing as God, to do all those things necessary to carry out daily activities that exist in what is called a “free country.”
Before 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as “official” records.
Since 1921 the American people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state tells you that registering your child’s birth through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the United States , thereby making him/her a United States Citizen. For the past several years a social security number has been mandated by the federal government to be issued at birth. In 1933, bankruptcy was declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the “full faith and credit” of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system. To wit:”Full faith and credit” clause of Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1, requires that foreign judgement be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of its origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken.
The state claims an interest in every child within it’s jurisdiction. The state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights and appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children. The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. Why do you think they teach teachers to not only teach their students, but their parents that their child needs a good education so that they can grow up and get a good job? Lol they been making the people slaves for years and no one has ever stopped to question them on it? The child itself, when born, is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate, and the social security number is the numbering or registration of the trust, allowing for the assets of the trust to be tracked, thus making whomever gets a birth certificate owned by the state. Everyone who has a birth certificate, are considered assets of the bankrupt United States of America, which makes them designated by this government as “HUMAN RESOURCES”. Again, ask yourself, why do you think when you call to see if a company is hiring, you have to go through a division known as Human Resource? Better wakeup folks!
Today we are defined as human resources, believed to be owned by the government. The government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked. Government mandated or legislated National I.D. is unconstitutional anyway you look at it. Federal jurisdiction to legislate for the several states does not exist. They have no legislation for ordering you to have a identification card, health card, and so forth, but they know the people are ignorant to the Law, so therefore by ignorance of the people, the government is allowed to freely at will keep coming up with forms of taxation against the American people. Birth Certificates proves that you are national property of the International Banks. The birth certificate thus becomes a form of theft, the theft of the child’s true identity as a free child of God to a servant of the State. By affixing a national seal of approval to a child, the state denies the freedom, rights, and dignity that God has ordained in the scriptures. You don’t need proof that you were born, you breathing is proof enough for these hypocrites. By requiring a license, the state is claiming complete control and ownership over your liberty, and property. Christ’s assembly does not exist on paper, but in the hearts of men, and is expressed in their outward acts. Because there is no breath of Life from God in such pieces of paper, we should not look to them for any authority for doing anything. Christ is our authority for doing the things we do.
Now ask yourself, have you ever, in your entire life, “signed” your name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS? Of course not! Haven’t you always used both upper and lower case letters to sign your name? Yes. And why is that? Because that is what you have been taught since a child. Because the standard Rule of Law governing the use of English Grammar states that the correct Capitalization of Proper Names must begin with a capital letter, and the rest of the name must be spelled in smaller case letters. At Law, this lets others know you are an entity created by God, and not an entity created by man. Now, there are entities created by man, Corporations for example. Corporations are known as “persons” created by the government. They are created on a piece of paper and brought into existence by the government. To differentiate between those created by God and those created by the government, those created by the government have their names spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. This lets others know that this entity does not have a body, soul, and spirit like man has, but that this is a fictitious entity created for the purpose of making a profit.
Now, if you look at a license, or ID Card or Birth Certificate, you will notice the name that appears on it is spelled in all capital letters! What this means, at law, is that the entity that is named on this license is a creature of the government, and not a creature of God. It means that entity is a servant of Caesar, and not a servant of God. Send your birth certificate back to the government or your state, and follow the path of freedom which is in the Most High. Shalom!

Did you know what you got into when you got a marriage license from the
state?  You were “tricked” into signing over your children to the state!
(The fruit of a marriage!)

Marriage Licenses:

The Real Truth

by Virgil Cooper

Enlightening Conversation with a Marriage License Bureau. . . .

About 15 years ago, my former wife of 26 years, filed for divorce. We had seven (7) children: five (5) daughters and two (2) sons.  Our youngest at the time, our second son, was five years old.  At the time, I prepared a counterclaim to the Petition for Dissolution her attorney filed in Domestic Relations (DR) court.

I met one afternoon with the head of the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage License Bureau, in downtown Phoenix. The marriage license bureau was headed by a young woman of about age 25.  I asked her to explain to me the general and statutory implications of the marriage license.  She was very cooperative, and called in an Assistant, a tall Black man who at the time was working on an Operations Manual for internal departmental use.

She deferred for most technical explanations to her Assistant. He walked through the technicalities of the marriage license as it operates in Arizona.  He mentioned that marriage licensing is pretty much the same in the other states –but there are differences. One significant difference he mentioned was that Arizona is one of eight western states that are Community Property states.  The other states are Common Law states, including Utah, with the exception of Louisiana which is a Napoleonic Code state.

He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage license. He said, first of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between the parties and the State.  The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract.  The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties.  The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract.

He said, in the traditional sense a marriage is a covenant between the husband and wife and God.  But in the Secular Contract with the state, reference to God is a dotted line, and NOT officially considered included in the Secular Contract at all.

He said, if the husband and wife wish to include God as a party in their marriage, that is a “dotted line” they will have to add in their own minds.  The state’s marriage license is “strictly secular,” he said.  He said further, that what he meant by the relationship to God being a “dotted line” meant that the State regards any mention of God as irrelevant, even meaningless.

In his description of the marriage license contract, the related one other “dotted line.”  He said in the traditional religious context, marriage was a covenant between the husband and wife and God with husband and wife joined as one. This is not the case in the secular realm of the state’s marriage license contract. The State is the Principal or dominant party.  The husband and wife are merely contractually “joined” as business partners, not in any
religious union. They may even be considered, he said, connected to each other by another “dotted line.”

The picture he was trying to “paint” was that of a triangle with the State at the top and a solid line extending from the apex, the State, down the left side to the husband, and a separate solid line extending down the right side to the wife, a “dotted line” merely showing that they consider themselves to have entered into a religious union of some sort that is irrelevant to the State.
He further mentioned that this “religious overtone” is recognized by the State by requiring that the marriage must be solemnized either by a state official or by a minister of religion that has been “deputized” by the State to perform the marriage ceremony and make a return of the signed and executed marriage license to the State.

Again, he emphasized that marriage is a strictly secular relationship so far as the State is concerned and because it is looked upon as a “privileged business enterprise” various tax advantages and other political privileges have become attached to the marriage license contract that have nothing at all to do with marriage as a religious
covenant or bond between God and a man and a woman.

By way of reference, if you would like to read a legal treatise on marriage, one of the best is “Principles of Community Property,” by William Defuniak.  At the outset, he explains that Community Property law descends from Roman Civil Law through the Spanish Codes, 600 A.D., written by the Spanish juris consults.

In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually produce a profit in operation) and as the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business. To restate: In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a business venture, that is, a for-profit business venture.  Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have “borne fruit.”

Now, back to the explanation by the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage Bureau’s administrative Assistant.  He went on to explain that every contract must have consideration.  The State offers consideration in the form of the actual license itself – the piece of paper, the Certificate of Marriage.  The other part of consideration by the State is “the privilege to be regulated by statute.” He added that this privilege to be regulated by statute includes all related statutes, and all court cases as they are ruled on by the courts, and all statutes and regulations into the future in the years following the commencement of the marriage.  He said in a way the marriage license contract is a dynamic or flexible, ever-changing contract as time goes along – even though the husband and wife didn’t realize that.

My thought on this is can it really be considered a true contract as one becomes aware of the failure by the State to make full disclosure of the terms and conditions.  A contract must be entered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with fully informed consent.  Otherwise, technically there is no contract.

Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a flawed “contract.”  Such a contract with the State is said to be a “specific performance” contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that attach.

Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid and the implied agreement to be subject to the state’s statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property.  He emphasized that this contractual consideration by the bride and groom places them in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject to the State.  He commented that very few people realize this.

He also said that it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as “the contract bearing fruit” -meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.

In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as “the contract bearing fruit,” he said it is vitally important for
parents to understand two doctrines that became established in the United States during the 1930s.  The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae.  The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.

Parens Patriae means literally “the parent of the country” or to state it more bluntly – the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don’t offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children – the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]

He also added a few more technical details.  The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship with the State.  Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage, to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts.  They can get car loans,
home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage because it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by the State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for-profit business enterprise.  The marriage contract acquires property through out its existence and over time, it is hoped, increases in value.

Also, the marriage contract “bears fruit” by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a “divorce” results the contract continues in existence. The “divorce” is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions of the contract.  Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage, over the husband and wife, now separated, continues and continues over all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over children brought into the marriage.

That is why family law and the Domestic Relations court calls “divorce” a dissolution of the marriage because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form.  He also pointed out that the marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has on people.

At the end of our hour-long meeting, I somewhat humorously asked if other people had come in and asked the questions I was asking? The Assistant replied that in the several years he had worked there, he was not aware of anyone else asking these questions. He added that he was very glad to see someone interested in the legal implications of the marriage license and the contractual relationship it creates with the State.

His boss, the young woman Marriage Bureau department head stated, “You have to understand that people who come in here to get a marriage license are in heat.  The last thing they want to know is technical, legal and statutory implications of the marriage license.”

I hope this is helpful information to anyone interested in getting more familiar with the contractual implications of the
marriage license.  The marriage license as we know it didn’t come into existence until after the Civil War and didn’t become standard practice in all the states until after 1900, becoming firmly established by 1920.  In effect, the states or governments appropriated or usurped control of marriages in secular form and in the process declared Common Law applicable to marriages “abrogated.”

Please pass this information along and share it as widely as possible.

Original message from Virgil Cooper: ultrac21@whitemtns.com

“Essentially, the husband and wife became married to the STATE; anything the two produced became the property and control of the STATE.”– – Jack Slevkoff

Such contacts can be considered void due to non-full disclosure
or can be terminated when full disclosure is realized.


Marriage License is a Trap

May 17, 2012

We innocently forfeit our legal
and parental rights when we
purchase a marriage license.
Rich writes:I wanted to pass along some VERY important information regarding marriage, the marriage contract, contract law, the state and children. This has helped me see the TRUE DANGER in getting married today.

I have been studying the law intensely for the past few years and learned all about maritime law, contract law, trusts, corporations, policies, common law and how nearly ALL such “laws” today are not laws at all, but are merely Policies. They’re operating under pretense of law. That is why police today are in fact called Police…because they enforce POLIC(E)-IES… NOT laws.  They actually work for the insurance companies who are themselves owned by the banks, especially the Federal Reserve central banks.


by Rich

The marriage license began in the middles ages
as a private contract between two families. Most of the time this was recorded in the local church with or without eyewitnesses. Usually the word of a couple that stated they were married was sufficient to have the marriage recorded as such.According to Black’s Law Dictionary, the word license is defined as – “Permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.”

In other words, the government makes something that was lawful to do, illegal. They then charge you a fee (which is a bribe) to turn their backs and give you a permit that allows you to break the law that they just said was illegal to do!

So the state, in instituting any kind of licensing, is forcing you to contract with them and pay a bribe to do something that they claim is illegal.


In Civil Law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture. As the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business.Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have “borne fruit.”

Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a flawed “contract.”

This contract with the State is said to be a “specific performance” contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that are attached to it.

Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid. This results in an implied agreement to be subject to the state’s statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property.

It should be emphasized that this contractual consideration places the bride and groom in an inferior position (

as defined-by-law) and makes them subject to the State. Very few people realize this.

It is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as “the contract bearing fruit” – meaning the children primarily belong to the State.

In this regard, children are regarded as “contract bearing fruit,”.

This was established in the US in the 1930’s by two doctrines. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.

Parens Patriae means literally “the parent of the country” or to put it more bluntly – the State is the undisclosed true parent.

Along this line, a 1930’s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State.

This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don’t offend the State.

But if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children -i.e. the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]

The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship between the husband, wife and state. It’s a trinity, just like a pyramid, with the State on top.

Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage (a maritime corporation), to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage.

Also, the marriage contract “bears fruit” by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a “divorce” results the contract continues in existence.

The “divorce” is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction over the marriage, husband and wife, by the state, now separated, continues over all aspects of the marriage, including over marital property and the children brought into the marriage.

That is why Family Law and the Domestic Relations court calls “divorce” a dissolution of the marriage, because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form. The marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has on people.

This is why time and time again CPS feels that they can just come in and take over your children, because according to the marriage license (along with numerous other unrevealed contracts), they have legal jurisdiction over your children without you really knowing or understanding why.

Much of this also goes back to the 14th amendment, your all capitalized name and each persons name being incorporated, thus giving the states and Feds authority over you.

This is how we have all become enslaved once again, by these dangerous and unrevealed adhesion contracts, many of which, like the marriage contract, are always in force to some degree.

Others include: Social Security, Drivers Licenses, Building Permits, Property Taxes, and SO many more. ALL of these items are adhesion contracts that have far reaching implications, without you knowing it.

None of them are mandatory!!!!!

Related – Virgil Cooper – The Truth About Marriage Licenses 


Just some facts on “marriage licenses”:

A marriage license does not make or not make one “married”. All it does is make more revenue for the ‘state’. It is not even required by law! Most people are ignorant to this. …

“Marriage” is NOT a “gift” for being a Citizen of the United States. The “gift” you get for being a citizen of the United States is servitude (read the 14th Amendment). Being an American is a blessing from God, being a US federal citizen is not (read the Declaration, and go back to the original findings of our govt.)

The “gift” of marriage is FROM God, and God only. Therefore, we do NOT need the state’s permission. A “License” gives you the right to do something, that without it, you would be doing something illegal. Since when was marriage, a God-ordained institution, illegal, if you did not ask the permission of the state to do this? You have a “right” to get married, without a license/state’s permission. “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. THAT TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed…” Decl. of Indep., paragraph 2. Again, we do NOT get our rights from government, but from God.

Marriage licenses for all citizens is fairly new. It began in the 1800’s were citizens that wanted an interracial marriage, had to petition to the government for permission. You see, back then, blacks were not considered human! They were viewed as animals (can you believe that?!) However, marriages between 2 white people, or 2 black people, or 2 Chinese, did NOT need licenses. They still don’t. However, the government is happy to allow you, in your ignorance, to pay them revenue.

If you call up your local County Clerk and Recorder and ask them if a marriage license is required, they will probably tell you “Yes”. This is out of ignorance. And remember, the state has a vested interest in keeping their employees ignorant, and not advising them of true law. Marriage “licenses” bring in a lot of revenue!! What do you do if you ask them and they say “YES”? Just ask them “what law” requires this? I guarantee you, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH ONE! If they say they don’t know which one, just tell them you will give them a few days to find out, and you will call back for their answer. After all, should they be telling citizens there is a law for something if they don’t even know what that law is, or better yet, if one even exists?! NO!

It is not “being a good citizen” to pay for something that goes into their greedy coffers, when it is not even required. That revenue is better off in the pockets of those that earned that money in the first place. When Jesus said “Render to Caesar what is Caesars”, He was referring to giving to the heathen what was theirs, not throwing away what belongs to the righteous and giving it to the heathen. Big difference.

As the fevered handwringing and celebrations over the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling remains in full swing, I thought it may be a good time to reflect on what gay people really won. On one level they … won equal protection under the law and will be able to be issued marriage licenses in every state. Marriage was reclassified from a, “basic civil right”, to a “fundamental right”. That doesn’t sound much different, but it makes a huge difference. In my blog last week, I asked why we need government approval for a marriage in the first place. What is the point of a marriage license? Well, in an effort to answer my own question, I did a little digging. What I found out was horrifying.

In order to fully explain what I mean, let’s start with marriage before the marriage license. Yes! There is such a thing! Let’s go way back to the 1600’s where most of our laws concerning marriage were inherited from England. The ugliest of these laws were called anti-miscegenation laws, or laws that prevented interracial marriages. These laws persisted for over 300 years. They were prevalent in almost every state in the union. Miscegenation laws were upheld numerous times even after the 14th amendment was passed. In the famous Supreme Court case of 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson, the concept of “separate but equal” became the law of the land. This allowed the states that still clung to anti-miscegenation laws to renew their fervor against interracial marriage. The argument went something like: Everyone is free to marry, just marry in your own race. …

Up until this point in American history, around the 1920’s, there was no such thing as a marriage license. The states invented them as a way to dictate who could and could not get married for the purpose of making sure blacks, whites, Asians and Indians didn’t mix. That’s right. Marriage licenses were invented as a way to stop white people from marrying black people. Because they couldn’t get a license, interracial couples who would have been considered married before the marriage license was available, ceased to be married. They lost inheritance rights, medical rights and all other benefits of common law marriage. The issuers of marriage licenses were considered the gate keepers, charged with keeping the white race pure.

Laws against interracial marriage persisted long after segregation was deemed unconstitutional in 1957. It wasn’t until 1967 that anti-miscegenation laws were wiped off the books in the southern states. Alabama didn’t bother to take it off the books until 2000. Thanks for that Alabama, appreciate it. In fact, I live in Florida, where until 1967 an interracial marriage could get you 10 years in prison. Thank goodness for Alabama I guess.

My question for gay people is this: If this is what you won, did you really win? Really? What I see that you won is to be able to claim the government can now have dominion over your marriage just like it does of straight peoples’ marriages. If you are really looking for equality might I suggest joining in the fight to abolish the marriage license? Look at it this way, by what right does the government have the right to approve or deny who we want to form a life with? A license is permission. Do you really need permission to love someone enough to spend your life with them?

I get it. There are certain benefits to being married. Social Security, Medical, Legal, survivorship rights. Without a marriage license how could you be sure to reap the benefits and rewards of marriage? How about you get married to whomever you want, register that marriage with the state and receive a certificate of marriage that is recognized by the federal government. Like they did before the government found a way to control who gets married. How about you dictate to them who you married, not the other way around. The state and federal government should not be able to dictate who you marry. Period.

We are all individuals and the government should treat us all the same. Marriage is necessary to protect certain aspects of society like children and surviving spouses. The only reason that we need to register as a couple at all is for the government benefits. The avenue’s to gain access to these benefits are not contingent on the marriage license. There would be no need to make any real changes to the system we already have in place. You would notify the same government offices, in the same way as you would right now.

Let’s put the power back into the hands of the people and get rid of the last vestiges of a racist, bigoted practice that is the marriage license. Little did you know that the license you are clamoring for and that is filed away in millions of homes around the country has roots more ugly than the confederate flag that can no longer be purchased on Amazon.com. Ironic, isn’t it.


Five Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License

by: Pastor Matt Trewhella

Every year thousands of Christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because their pastor has told them to go get one, and besides, “everybody else gets one.” This article attempts to answer the question – why should we not get one?

1. The definition of a “license” demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “license” as, “The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.” We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission? More importantly, why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State’s permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says “no”? You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition “confers a right” to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.

2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.

In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, “your marriage license and their birth certificates.” Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications.

3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.

As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State! I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for me to do so.

4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father’s blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, “Who gives this woman to be married to this man?”

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.

Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parents authority by demanding that the parents permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry.

By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, “You don’t need your parents permission, you need our permission.” If parents are opposed to their child’s marrying a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parents authority by obtaining the State’s permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State.

5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist. From the State’s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State.

The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled “With This Ring I Thee Wed.” It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle “Marriage Vows” states, “Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio.”

See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are like a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State and your spouse. You are also giving undue jurisdiction to the State.

When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?

God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons – 1). in the case of divorce, and 2). when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it does not prosecute for adultery.

In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor. They should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept.

Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime.

History of Marriage Licenses in America

George Washington was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines “marriage license” as, “A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.” “Intermarry” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, “Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages.”

Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me “10,000 miles.”) Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. 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.

What Should We Do?

Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, “If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren’t really married.” Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, “If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license – who’s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a marriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. We need to think biblically. (As for homosexuals marrying, outlaw sodomy as God’s law demands, and there will be no threat of sodomites marrying.)

You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.

When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What’s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Early Americans were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we.


At this point, having covered why state-sanctioned marriage is wrong and should be avoided, we should step back and look at Biblical examples of marriage.  How did they get married?

And YEHOVAH ELOHIM [The Lord God] said, “It is not good that the human should be alone; I will make for it a helper counterpart to it.”  And YEHOVAH ELOHIM had formed out of the ground every beast of the field and every bird of the air; and He brought them to the human to see what it would call them. And all which the human might call it, each living soul, that was its name. And the human gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for the human there was not found a helper suited to it.  And YEHOVAH ELOHIM caused a deep sleep to fall upon the human, and it slept. And He took the female portion and closed up the flesh underneath. And YEHOVAH ELOHIM formed the female portion which He had taken from the human into a woman and brought her to the human. And the human said, “This is now bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh. For this shall be called Woman, because out of man this has been taken.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cling to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

(Genesis 2:18-24, RET)

And Yitschak [Isaac] went out to meditate in the field as it came towards evening. And he lifted up his eyes, and saw; and behold, the camels were coming.  And Rivkah [Rebeccah] lifted up her eyes, and she saw Yitschak; and she dismounted off the camel.  And she said to the servant, “Who man is this that walks in the field to meet us?” And the servant had answered, “It is my master.” And she took the veil, and covered herself. And Yitschak told the servant all the things that he had done.  And Yitschak brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rivkah, and she became his wife; and he loved her.

(Genesis 24:63-67 RET)

I’m sure there are other examples.  Adam & Eve are the real clincher.  NO CEREMONY, PASTOR, PERMISSION, ETC, IS NECESSARY FOR A MARRIAGE.  Just get together (cohabitation/de facto – NOT “one night stand”) AND YOU’RE MARRIED!  You’re not committing fornication, and it’s not sinful (despite common Christian perception).  The following is an excellent article on the subject:

I have often been puzzled by something missing from the Bible: marriage ceremonies.

Although lots of people are married in the Bible, there are no descriptions of any ceremonies. Adam and Eve are “married” simply by the fact that they are made for each other and they procreate. Jacob marries Leah by mistake, which happens not because of a disguised bride at a wedding ceremony, but because he consummates the marriage in the darkness of a tent. Jesus attends a wedding in Cana which consists of a family party, but no ceremony is described.

The only “ceremony” I can find in the Bible is Tobit 7:12-14 in which a father places the hand of his daughter in the hand of the husband, and then writes a contract.

The reason why there are no marriage ceremonies in the Bible is because marriage did not involve a ceremony. Marriage in the Bible simply consists of a man and woman, with the consent of the woman’s father or guardian, living together and attempting procreation.

No vows, no priest, no ritual, no prayer, no pronouncement, no license, no registration.

This is quite different from how we define and enact marriage today.

Today, for a marriage to be “real” it must be legal; in other words, it must be recognized by the laws of the state and registered with the state.

Also, for many Christians, a marriage is not a “Christian marriage” unless it is officiated by a credentialed minister who makes a verbal pronouncement, preferably in the presence of the congregation.

But these are all recent innovations. For most of human history, marriage has simply been an agreement, recognized or arranged by the immediate families, for a man and woman to live together.

Marriage as a legal institution, and as a religious ceremony, began as a result of the Reformation.

Beginning in the Middle Ages, churches kept records of who was married to whom. But Luther viewed marriage as a “worldly matter,” and so he turned over the recording of marriages to the state.

Calvin believed that for a marriage to be valid it needed to be both recorded by the state and officiated by the church.

The Catholic Church did not require marriages to be officiated by a priest until 1563, and the Anglican Church did not get around to making this requirement until 1753.

So for the past five hundred years there have been, in the European tradition, three kinds of marriage: legal, religious, and social. But social marriage, strictly speaking, is the most biblical.

What would happen if the church today were to once again recognize social marriage?

It would mean that couples living together, particularly those raising children, could be treated as married even if they are not legally married or have not undergone any kind of religious ritual.

Indeed, during most of history, society as well as the church would have regarded such couples as married. Since a growing number of couples today are choosing to live together and raise children without a ceremony or legal license, it may be advantageous for the church to look more kindly and inclusively upon them.

Otherwise, we will alienate these couples and they will not benefit from the guidance and support of the church.

This does not mean the church should stop advocating for religious ceremonies and legalized marriages. These innovations have important purposes.

A public ceremony that includes vows and prayers makes the couple’s commitment to each other clear, links the couple’s love to the sacred story of God’s love, and gives the community and congregation an explicitly supportive role in helping to maintain the marriage.

A legally recognized marriage gives the couple various rights and benefits, provides additional stability to the relationship, and protects both spouses and children in case of divorce.

The church supports marriage and family the best, I think, when it recognizes that couples who intend to share their lives together represent a type of marriage.

I do not know why an increasing number of couples in our society are choosing not to legally marry, but we are doing them no good by rejecting them.

Let us instead welcome them, treat them as if they were married, and advocate for the benefits of public religious ritual and legal status.



Now we get to the origins of the traditions that occur in a state-sanctioned marriage.  The following is reproduced from Why in the World?, published by Readers Digest:

Why is June a favourite month for weddings?

An old British saying is that one wedding makes many.  And that is undoubtedly true in June, a month when all weddings are said to be guaranteed lifelong bliss.  The belief dates from ancient times, a relic of Roman mythology.

The month is said to take its name from Juno the goddess of youth, the faithful wife of Jupiter and guardian of womanhood from birth to death. It is said the goddess ensured that a marriage in her month was blessed with happiness.

In many countries, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, more marriages take place in June than in any other month. Mid-summer weather is one explanation and the other is the survival of this ancient superstition which seems to overpower beliefs about lucky days in which to wed.  Saturday, the most popular day for a wedding, is also according to ancient beliefs regarded as the unluckiest.

If Saturday is the unluckiest day, a Saturday wedding in May must be instantly doomed.  Fewer weddings are held in May, which is still regarded by many as the unluckiest month for marital vows.  The goddess Maia, or Majesta, is said to have been the month’s protector, but she was also the wife of Vulcan, god of fiery elements.  A May marriage, some believed, would bring an unpleasantly fierce relationship.  Others pointed to Maia’s role as patroness of old people, asserting that June weddings were for young lovers and May for the elderly.

Are June weddings blessed with greater happiness? Divorce statistics don’t support this.  Proportionally, just as many June marriages break up as those made in any other month of the year.

Why do couples “tie the knot”?

It’s a fair bet that during the course of a couple’s engagement somebody will remark that they are ‘tying the knot’.  Equally, it is unlikely that the person making the remark or those hearing it will have much idea of its origins.

The reference is to what was originally an ancient Babylonian custom, probably 3000 years old. At the marriage ceremony, friends of the couple would take a thread from the bride’s clothes and one from the groom’s and tie them together, a gesture symbolising the pair’s eternal union.

The custom spread in various ways, and the tying or undoing of knots acquired many meanings.  At some marriage services in medieval Britain, as the priest intoned, “Whom God hath joined together let no man separate,” a needle-woman tied 3 knots in a piece of lace to ensure the couple’s fidelity.

At ceremonies in the Scottish Hebrides, a groomsman took 3 threads, each of a different hue, tied 3 knots in each, and uttered what he believed were the most cruel disappointments of the nuptial bed. To avoid such calamity, the groom stood at the altar, with his shoes untied.  Elsewhere in Scotland, as late as the mid-nineteenth century, all knots on the bride’s clothes-garters, shoelaces, petticoat strings – and on the groom’s were untied immediately before the ceremony. Afterwards the strings and laces were examined. If sorcerers wished to render the union childless, they only had to tie any cord with a special cord. The couple, it was believed, would then have no hope of raising a family.

At some Irish weddings a century ago, the tying of knots as the priest gave his benediction was thought to bring equally dire consequences. An ill-wisher repeated the benediction and, at the mention of each of the 3 sacred names of the holy Trinity, tied a knot in the handkerchief or piece of string. Such an act, it was believed, would render the marriage childless for 15 years unless someone destroyed the curse by burning the handkerchief or knotted string.

Why do newlyweds take a ‘honeymoon’?

When a bridegroom and his bride slip away – unnoticed, if they can – to start their honeymoon, they are repeating part of a barbarous practice of centuries past.  In those days, a young man, usually aided by his best man, seized a wife by force, hiding her away, and fighting off all attempts to recapture her. Later, having convinced his wife that he was the perfect husband, the pair would come out of hiding, and the young man would try to placate the bride’s family by offering gifts.

Today the wife is a willing partner in the getaway ploy, aiming merely to avoid the pranks that often upset the departure of newlywed couples. Many keep their destination secret, another link with past time of honeymoon hidaways.

The honeymoon custom started with the ancient Teutons, who lived in Jutland, northern Europe, until they migrated south in the 2nd century BC. For a lunar month, or moon, after their wedding, Teutonic newly-weds celebrated their union with meed, wine made from honey. This feast became known as the honey-moon, and later defined the custom of newlyweds taking a holiday immediately after marriage. Since then, the term has come into more general usage.  Today it is often applied, somewhat cynically, to any period, particularly involving a new government, when harsh realities are temporarily suspended.

Why do we shower the couple with confetti?

It started, as did many of our festive customs, with the Romans, who tossed nuts, sweets or wheat over a home going bride to ensure her fertility. It some parts of Germany today, the custom continues, but guest give the bride nuts instead of throwing them. Elsewhere, well-wishers shower the bride with good-luck tokens of many kinds, particularly slippers, cakes and handfuls of rice.

Greek, Roman and Anglo-Saxon brides sometimes wore head bands of corn or wheat, another emblem of fertility, and in Saxon times, brides walked down an aisle that was scatted with wheat and barley. From these customs came that of throwing wheat, not just at weddings but also at other ceremonies. A memoir of 1486 records that, on a visit to the west of England, King Henry VII was showered with wheat to bid him welcome.

Later, perhaps through oriental influence, or as an adaption of the Saxon ritual, rice – symbolic of fecundity – was substituted for wheat, and the custom was confined to weddings.  In some parts of Europe during the Middle Ages it was believed that male and female demons, lurking jealously, could replace the husband or wife in a marriage, and wreck the couple’s happiness. Rice, thrown at the wedding as food for the spirits, would feed and placate them.

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, rice-throwing was common at weddings in many parts of Europe and America. It’s introduction to Britain in the 1880s was condemned by many as “a horrid modern fashion.” Ministers particularly deplored it, especially within their churches, even though that was where the English custom once started.

Soon, confetti – Italian for confectionary, such as tiny cakes and sweets – was thrown in addition to rice and in some regions replaced it. The cakes and sweet were often made in the shape of hearts, flowers and various good-luck symbols. Already in parts Europe and South America, multi-coloured paper streamers were commonly thrown at carnival celebrations.

In time, paper imitations appeared of Italian confetti. Cheaper and more readily available, it soon replaced the older symbols of rose petals, cakes and rice. Today, it is not unusual to see a bride and groom showered with something cheaper still – the circular punchings of computer paper.

Why does a bride have maids?

In ancient times, a bride and her maids might be almost indistinguishable. A bride chose bridesmaids who resembled her as closely as possible, and she and her maids would dress in similar costumes.

This contrived similarity in overall appearance was designed to confuse evil spirits, overcome with jealously at the prospect of impending joy and good fortune. On the theory that numbers bring safety, and more so if you can’t pick one from another, the bride surrounded herself with look-alikes.

In ancient Rome, marriages required ten witness, and some historians trace our custom of brides maids and grooms men to Roman times. Later, bridesmaids and groomsmen served to defend a betrothed couple from attack. Until the Middle Ages, it was not unusual for a rival suiter and his aides to carry off the bride during a wedding ceremony.

By becoming a bridesmaid, a young woman draws her own set of good and bad omens.  For her to stumble on her way to the altar is said to doom her chances of marriage.  And superstition holds that to be a bridesmaid thrice ensures she will stay for ever single.

Mystics endowed the number three with both good and bad fortune.  For a bridesmaid, it boded ill – unless she served as a bridesmaid at four more weddings.  Seven, the days of the week, is a lucky number, linked with the changing phases of the moon.  For seven-times bridesmaid any change, it is argued, must inevitably be for the better.

Why is wedding cakes so symbolic?

Of all the elements that go to make up a marital feast, none has more significance than the wedding cake. No bride can be happily married, it is said, if she makes her own cake, because she will commit herself to a life of drudgery. Nor will she be happy unless she is the first to cut it – with her husband’s sword, if he has one, or otherwise with the best knife in the house. As she does so, she should make a silent wish. The groom places his hand on hers, not to help cut the cake, but to show that he is eager to share in her good fortune.

A piece of wedding cake could convey good luck to her friends. That’s why guests are invited to take home a portion, and slices are mailed to absent friends. Traditionally, the cake should be given to an unmarried woman. There is widespread superstition that, if she passes a small piece of it through a wedding ring, stores the cake in the foot of her left stocking, then sleeps with it under her pillow, she will see her future husband in her dreams.  Another version insists that the groom should pass fragments of cake nine times through his wedding ring before distributing them to unmarried girls at the feast.  Such practices were common and even more elaborate earlier this century.  A history of British folklore records that wedding cake sent to an unmarried woman must include some icing.  The cake represents the future husband, the icing symbolises the bride.  The girl should take the cake in her hands, get into bed backwards, saying the rhyme: ‘I put this cake under my head, To dream of the living and not the dead, To dream of the man that I am to wed.’  After intoning the verse, the girl must keep silent until falling asleep, with the cake under her pillow.

The wedding cake and rituals associated with it come to us from ancient Rome, where marriages were followed by a feast at which symbolic dishes were served.  A special cake, made from flour, salt and water, was broken over the bride’s head, a sign of fertility and good fortune.  Wedding guests were given pieces of the cake as lucky tokens.

The Roman custom of breaking the wedding cake over the bride was still followed last century at weddings in Scotland and the north of England.  Unless this was done, many believed the marriage would end in poverty.  In Scotland, before the bride crossed the threshold of her new home, an oaten wedding cake was broken above her head.  IN England, the bride’s head was covered with a cloth, and the groom broke a thin currant cake above her.  Then he tossed the cake in the air for others to seize and follow various rituals that were said to guarantee their own good fortune.

Why do brides wear ‘something old, something new’?

Although wedding ceremonies have changed considerably in recent years, many customs are still observed, even with brides with modern ideas and tastes. Most still keep to the centuries-old tradition of ‘Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue.’ An extra requirement, according to some English traditions, is ‘And a sovereign (or a sixpence) in her shoe.’

This quintet of superstitions is believed to have originated in England, but many other cultures have similar customs.  All come from a belief in the idea that one person’s good luck can be readily handed on to another.

To wear something old, particularly a mother’s wedding dress, is said to confer good luck on the bride, though most modern brides put fashion first. An old garter from a happily married woman similarly passes on some of that person’s good fortune, it is believed.  A borrowed item, such a bridal veil from a blissful wife, also is aid to bring happiness.  When Princess Elizabeth, now Britain’s reigning queen, married in 1947, she borrowed her mother’s tiara.  When her mother, then Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, married in 1923, she borrowed the old veil of point de Flandres lace worn by Queen Mary.

‘Something blue’ is often a bride’s only departure from all-white attire. Upholders of tradition – or superstition – insist that the blue must be sky blue, the colour of the heavens, which symbolises trueness and fidelity. Some believe that to abide by the rule of having everything right, the blue should not be visible. That’s why the old, borrowed and blue are sometimes combined in one item – a garter.

In many cultures coins are a token of future prosperity.  One British superstition is that on her wedding eve a bride should be dressed by her maids in her oldest sleeping attire.  Another asserts that ‘lucky is the bride who marries in old shoes’.  If she has a coin, particularly a gold one, taped inside her shoe, she is walking her way to future wealth.

Lifting a veil of mystery

Of all the customs still clinging to the marriage ceremony in times of equality and liberation, none is stranger than that of the bride wearing a veil. Brides have amended their marriage vows, many no longer promising to honour and obey, but few in formal weddings go to the altar without a veil.

This convention, still popularly accepted without a qualm, comes to us almost certainly from the east, some say it is a symbol of the bride’s submission. Others said it is linked with purdah, the Muslim and Hindu restriction in which women are covered from head to foot to screen them form the prying eyes of strangers. A bridegroom is the first to lift the veil on his new bride.

The veil has links to sorcery, protecting the bride and her beauty against ‘the evil eye’ of possible ill-wishers.  …

Why do brides carry flowers?

Since ancient times, people in many parts of the world, have given flowers, an aura of magic, attributing to them the ability to influence future events, in particular happiness. Children and young lovers still play “love me, love me not” games. And many still look for four-leaved clover.

Flowers have always been associated with romance. In ancient Egypt, a gift of flowers was seen as a sign of good luck, a joyful sign of affection. In the East, flowers were thought to influence whether a young man married happily or not at all.  Daisylike flowers that we call bachelor’s buttons get the name from an Oriental custom that spread to Europe.  Young men in love picked a flower with the dew still on it.  If it remained bright and fresh after twenty-four hours in their pockets, the omen was for wedded bliss.  Often, a man who found a shrivelled bloom remained a bachelor rather than risk having a life of misery.

Among ancient peoples, flowers symbolised sex and fertility, and became a natural part of the marriage ritual. Today, brides carry a floral bouquet in the hope of ensuring marital happiness. Usually, the bouquet contains roses, signs of love and of luck. Ribbons tying the bouquet are also symbolic, and said to bring good wishes from the bride’s friends. …

The bride’s happiness, like a lucky charm, can be passed on to her bridesmaids and friends.  An old English saying advises nubile young ladies, ‘Catch sprigs from a bride’s bouquet and marry first.’  …

Why do brides wear white?

Few events are more prone to omens and superstitions than the marriage ceremony, and nobody has greater need to be aware of them, if she cares at all, than the bride herself.

In formal weddings, an age-old rule is still observed, that a bride should wear nothing coloured (except something blue that is usually hidden). Brides wear white because this has been a tradition for centuries. White is said to signify the bride’s purity, her innocence and candour. At one time, though rarely now, it indicated her acceptance of simple values. In ancient Greece, white was a symbol of joy. Greeks always wore white on feast days, and carried garlands of white flowers. Before wedding ceremonies, they even painted their bodies white.

Many superstitions apply to coloured gowns, but nevertheless are traditional in some countries.  ‘Married in red, you’d be better dead … Married in yellow, you’re ashamed of the fellow … Married in green, you’re ashamed to be seen … Married in pink, your spirits will sink.’

Only white (‘Married in white, you have chosen right’) and blue (‘your lover is true’) escape this kind of criticism.

In Conclusion

There are very clear warnings in Scripture about adopting pagan practices (Deuteronomy 18:9; 12:29-32; for instance).  So, the question is: why do we practice these things?

30 thoughts on “A History of Marriage – Part 1

  1. A ton of work you did here! It’s fascinating and eye opening. And really scary, how much of our faith that belongs to God we transferred to the government, blindly. Maybe slaves had it right, jumping over a broom.

    My dad, born in 1911, had an incomplete birth certificate, 2 actually. Both with different years of birth. He was born at home so I wonder if that had anything to do with it. Also wonder how he ever got a passport, but he did some intelligence work in the 1940s. Maybe then.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Wow, incredible JM. University papers are gonna be nothing for you.

    I find it interesting how the church has become marketable throughout the centuries. As well as the state.

    The church is an old relic of the various royals throughout time. Church was legitimized by every crown on every continent. Therefore like the luxuries of today, it began as a luxury to legitimize the royals way of life.

    The church of God is all around us, from the people we meet to the places we are. Not a single building has any rank over the entire universe.

    So, royals used to get wed in a building of worship. Then they sold this idea of a royal wedding to the general public.

    It’s all a money making scheme. Why else would you have to rent and reserve a church and a priest?

    The Church of England was established so Henry could divorce his wife!!!!

    When will people stop believing in man and start believing in God?

    God is the only one who can truly free!

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Such an in-depth (and loooong) article! But, it is really good. I agree – Adam and Eve the first human beings ever created did not get married in a church, or by the state, yet we are told that not “legally” getting married is wrong or a “sin”?

    Liked by 2 people

  4. I’m not that much of a online reader to be honest but your blogs really nice, keep it up! I’ll go ahead and bookmark your website to come back later. Cheers


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s