The Ugly History of the Marriage License in America

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 quite rightly 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. Which sounds eerily similar to: Gay people can get married, just marry someone of the opposite sex.

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.

60 thoughts on “The Ugly History of the Marriage License in America

  1. Glad you posted this. You may also find it interesting to know these fun facts:

    The right for women to vote was passed in June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920. The 19th amendment guarantees all American women the right to vote. Alice Paul set the series of this event into motion by going to prison and using a hunger strike to convince President Woodrow Wilson to cave to the idea that woman deserved the right to vote.

    Cohabitation in the United States is actually illegal in many states to this day, including Florida.

    Like

    • If you are a Christian and believe in the bible and God, then it is clear that marriage licence had no part in two people being together. The Bible also states; parahhased: when God put two people together let now man come between. Marriage licence is just like salivary a way to keep up with blacks. That was just one way.

      Liked by 3 people

      • I’m struggling right now. We’ve been in a common law marriage for 10 years but because California decided in 1895 they’re not legal, what does God think. Are we fornicating. Are we living in sin and what do we do if having a license is the only way for God to honor our marriage as is. We don’t want a license. Funny how California accept gay marriage but not mine.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Governments do not decide what is moral and immoral. Your government is not more powerful than your god. While your church might have happily given their moral authority away to the government, I assure you god did not. Your marriage is between you, your spouse and god.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Thank you. I think the only way I can figure this out is to search the history and find out what, when, who, and how, so the why, can be acceptable. Then I would still have some choices and a decision to make. Either way it has to glorify God. You helped.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Thank you for bringing to light what our right to love who we love and become united with who we want is all about. It is not about someone telling us that we have this right, it is about already having it.

    Like

  3. “The truth is just Le carnaval miroir, un cirque à dissimuler, de la fumée et des miroirs, une magiciens et tour de main un triomphe peut être trouvé dans la vérité…

    Like

  4. […] An example of this can be found in the battle over the definition of a state-issued marriage license; should it be between a man and a woman or can be also be two people of the same-sex? The authority of the state to license marriage, which Christianity teaches to be a covenant between a man and woman in the presence of God, is simply accepted by many without question as legitimate, when the entire concept was invented to prevent intercultural marriages. […]

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Good article, but I would beg to differ with the following statement:

    “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.”

    This is not factual. The avenues to gain access to these benefits is very much contingent on the marriage license. Surviving spouses must show a certified marriage license to gain access to Social Security benefits – either survivor’s benefits or their portion of their spouses Social Security benefit.

    A Certificate of Marriage is not recognized by the federal government. Only a State Certified Marriage Certificate is recognized by Social Security. Please do not give people false information.

    Like

  6. […] As Murray Rothbard once said, “Rights are universal, but their enforcement must be local.” As per Hans-Herman Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, if the person in question is capable of arguing, then they enjoy private property rights. Since “society” (and all demographics thereof) are made up of individuals, those said individuals are ultimately responsible for defending their own rights. Governments cannot protect the rights of minorities, because the government does not protect the property rights of anyone in the first place. In summation, government is the entity that instituted race slavery, and also marriage licensure to prevent interracial marriage. […]

    Like

  7. […] As Murray Rothbard once said, “Rights are universal, but their enforcement must be local.” As per Hans-Herman Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, if the person in question is capable of arguing, then they enjoy private property rights. Since “society” (and all demographics thereof) are made up of individuals, those said individuals are ultimately responsible for defending their own rights. Governments cannot protect the rights of minorities, because the government does not protect the property rights of anyone in the first place. In summation, government is the entity that instituted race slavery, and also marriage licensure to prevent interracial marriage. […]

    Liked by 1 person

  8. […] As Murray Rothbard once said, “Rights are universal, but their enforcement must be local.” As per Hans-Herman Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, if the person in question is capable of arguing, then they enjoy private property rights. Since “society” (and all demographics thereof) are made up of individuals, those said individuals are ultimately responsible for defending their own rights. Governments cannot protect the rights of minorities, because the government does not protect the property rights of anyone in the first place. In summation, government is the entity that instituted race slavery, and also marriage licensure to prevent interracial marriage. […]

    Liked by 1 person

  9. […] As Murray Rothbard once said, “Rights are universal, but their enforcement must be local.” As per Hans-Herman Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, if the person in question is capable of arguing, then they enjoy private property rights. Since “society” (and all demographics thereof) are made up of individuals, those said individuals are ultimately responsible for defending their own rights. Governments cannot protect the rights of minorities because the government does not protect the property rights of anyone in the first place. In summation, government is the entity that instituted race slavery and also marriage licensure to prevent interracial marriage. […]

    Like

  10. Want a brown world? Here you go

    Bi racial children can Not receive organ transplants! They die within hours. Natures way. The bible makes it so clear IF you read…
    see: Tobit 4:12

    Like

    • The video hasn’t anything to do with race; it appears much to do with poverty/ignorance! Lack of social cohesive power…

      Like

      • Crime has EVERYTHING to do with Race, every black and brown nation and state is a cess poo and crime ridden hell holel.
        The poorest in America are white living in Appalachia, yet their crime rate is 60% Lower than the national average. Try harder.

        Like

    • Tell that to Moses, He married a Ethiopian Woman.
      Arron and His wife were cursed with Leporsy , because they were critical of Moses marrying a Ethiopian.
      Moses sent his first wife away due to a contrite spirit, toward obedience to God.
      Ziporah His first wife almost got Moses killed resisting circumcision.

      Take and read it for yourself.
      You will find Margaret Sanger supported blood test before marriages, after all she founded planned parenthood.

      Any Preachers out there who think it is Godly to sign as a Wittness, need to enjoy signing two men in marriage under their great state.

      Like

      • Ethiopia wasnt Black at that time. Quite civilized. And White. Infrastructure like bridges were built. Blacks cant keep up with the iinfrastructure, let it rot once they ethnically cleansed whites, who fled North and now they cross those same bridges with Rope. Yes, Ropes.

        Like

  11. It is not so typical of me to refer professionals online but I feel like I owe a lot to donrobert who helped me track my cheating husband when he was having an affair, I got to find out that he has been lying to me for the past 5 months and seeing two other women. I was able to get direct access to his text messages, phone conversations and all social networks
    on his phone: what was most amazing was that his recently deleted messages were retrieved by donrobert. If you are getting less than you deserve in your relationship and want to be sure
    Contact : donrobert273(at)gmail(dot)com
    SMS/call: (+1) 352-505-1107

    Like

    • Protest-ants, all 35,000 competing sects of them, none agree on anything, say so.
      yet…
      Book of Tobit
      The Book of Tobit is a book of scripture that is part of the Catholic and Orthodox biblical canons, pronounced canonical by the Council of Hippo, Councils of Carthage of 397 and 417, Council of Florence and confirmed for Roman Catholics by the Council of Trent.
      More at Wikipedia

      Like

    • You silly Protest-ants, hellbound heretics all, have over 50 versions of the Bible, even PC ones so as not to offend Sodomites and Transgenders.
      Luther, tried to omit All of the book of James and Maccabees, as it contradicted his heresy of Sola Fide- or by Faith Alone. The King convinced him otherwise.
      Now, you errantly claim the book of Tobith is not legit, yet its what your forefathers followed until at least 1600 AD.

      Like

  12. In order to get a marriage license it is required that both parties to the marriage, whether straight or gay, must prove they are not already married . Is that not a good idea?

    Like

  13. You didn’t answer my question, extactly what year was the first marriage license issued between two slaves?

    Like

  14. Marriage, Constitution, and Rights Reserved to the People

    Herein lies the glitch – whenever there is a large number of people in your organization or in various groups of supporters you cannot either know what they are doing or thinking and you cannot control their beliefs and actions. As to marriage, I maintain that the government has no constitutional right to establish, define nor control marriage. When you are obligated to incorporate your marriage into government via license you have surrendered your freedom to the government which henceforth has control over your contract and over the product of your marriage your progeny. They can dictate what you must do and must act. They can also bestow upon you certain privilege and certain monetary advantages over non-licensed persons such as tax favoritism and other status perks. This actually flies in the face of the decision to give equal protection to same sex couples when they did not give equal protection or rights in the first place, very hypocritical and should never have been established to begin with. The requirement for licensing marriage is a ploy for economic control in the same way as a direct tax (the Federal Income Tax/IRS) which was expressly forbidden in the Constitution by the Founders because they realized it would be oppressive and corrupt (it is). Most of the people, the vast majority won’t have the vaguest ability to comprehend this basic concept of rights reserved to he people. The ulterior motives of political elitists who are aligned with pacs designed to create powerful wealth centers enabling them to control the government and consequently the general population to their own advantage. They do this via Normalcy Conditioning; a methodical presentation of system or ideal based on a false premise, frequently over a protracted period with endorsement from various groups with a vested financial interest until it becomes general accepted as normal and proper which it is not!!! The results should be obvious but are clouded by all manner of political diatribe. All these erroneous ideas have resulted in chaotic political campaigning and a financial Armageddon from which we may never recover – $21 trillion in current debt along with $121 trillion of non-funded ongoing obligations. Good Luck with that!!!!
    R T Poet, Minneapolis Minnesota

    Ramon’s iPhone

    Like

  15. Matt Wilson, since marriage ceremonies occur at Churches, Churches should have the final say so in whether or not to acknowledge them. Even though it technically qualifies as separate but equal, I see nothing wrong with civil unions getting the same benefits as marriage in the eyes of the law. Needing a license to validate a marriage-that is as absurd as needing a license to own and operate a business.

    What about DOMA, the Defense of marriage Act? Newt Gingrich championed that and yet cheated on 2 marriages. This hypocrisy is absolutely absurd. One area where there is a massive overreach is where Kentucky court clerk Kim Davis was arrested for not granting a marriage license to a same-sex couple.

    I really don’t give a damn what 2 consenting adults, regardless of their sexual orientation, do within the confines of their own home. Want to marry a member of your own gender? Go ahead. Just don’t use your relationship as license to violate the rights of people who oppose same-sex marriage.

    Like

  16. Matt Wilson, as a follow up to my one comment, I believe that any couple who decides to marry, as long as they are consenting adults, should not go to the government and ask for the government to give their blessing to the relationship. Outside of the tax issue, government should have no business butting into our private lives.

    I also fail to see why some people advocate a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage from a legal standpoint. The Dictionary already defined the word marriage, so this legal definition claptrap is absurd.

    Like

    • you are correct. those people try to legally define marriage in order to deny some people a right others have. it’s a very similar tactic to what the marriage license itself was used for. this is what authoritarianism of the right looks like. social justice is what authoritarianism of the left looks like.

      Like

  17. Matt Wilson, I believe that Kim Davis was in the wrong from a legal standpoint in her decision not to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Either comply with the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the law itself or fight to change things from a legal standpoint. Selectively choosing which laws you will abide by and which laws you will not is ultimately an invitation to lawlessness.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Matt Wilson, as a follow up to my prior comment, I personally believe that you should not need a license to validate a marital relationship. 2 consenting teenagers don’t need licenses to be able to legally date each other, just the consent of the parents of each person. On the same token, government should not have any say so regarding who you can marry.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. This theory on the history of the marriage license is completely erroneous.

    The Marriage License was created in the colonial south because people lived too far apart. In New England, the church was the center of the town. People lived in town and went out every day to farm then returned. When a couple decided to marry, Marriage Banns were posted on the church door for 3 weeks announcing their intent to wed. Anyone objecting to the marriage, or had knowledge why the marriage would not be legal (ie one of them was already married) they had 3 weeks to notify the clergy.

    In the south, the county was formed first, and the town second. More people lived further from town. The opportunity for people to see the Banns was basically nil, since people often only went to town every 6 months to purchase salt and items that could not be created on the farm. The Marriage License, along with a Security bond from the groom and a family member to be forfeited if the marriage was not legal, was instituted>

    Only 5 states in the entire US disallowed marriage between races (whites & Indians; whites and Negros; Whites and Asian, etc.) until 1970.

    Your fabricated theory is pure myth.

    Like

  20. I found your website searching for the subject.
    When one is licensed as a certified and ratified individual citizen s/he does so in Persona, taking on and using the mask — the title/person — of commerce; moreover that Person is an individual corporation, and when two individuals are licensed to marry the parties are joined together as a single corporation, so the offspring — the “Child” — of that adultery (given over to Man’s law over God’s law) is not in reality a property of the man or female acting in Persona, but is, rather, a ward of the State, who has given you guardian rights to manage the “Child.” This fact is ensconced in a doctrine of the Supreme Court. As a commonly-termed “parent” one is in reality a guardian.
    Have a listen to
    https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2014/05/18/what-to-respect-when-expecting/
    And look at Clint Richardson’s work at https://realitybloger.wordpress.com and listen to him on
    https://corporationnationradioarchives.wordpress.com/page/7/

    Like

  21. “The Marriage Hoax”

    Holy Matrimony is a religious rite
    A church ceremony is the proper site

    The State finagled a finger in the pot
    Control via license became the plot

    Subjugation and financial bite

    Verse by: Ramon the Poet

    Like

  22. Marriage, Constitution, and Rights Reserved to the People

    Herein lies the glitch – whenever there is a large number of people in your organization or in various groups of supporters you cannot either know what they are doing or thinking and you cannot control their beliefs and actions. As to marriage, I maintain that the government has no constitutional right to establish, define nor control marriage. When you are obligated to incorporate your marriage into government via license you have surrendered your freedom to the government which henceforth has control over your contract and over the product of your marriage your progeny. They can dictate what you must do and must act. They can also bestow upon you certain privilege and certain monetary advantages over non-licensed persons such as tax favoritism and other status perks. This actually flies in the face of the decision to give equal protection to same sex couples when they did not give equal protection or rights in the first place, very hypocritical and should never have been established to begin with. The requirement for licensing marriage is a ploy for economic control in the same way as a direct tax (the Federal Income Tax/IRS) which was expressly forbidden in the Constitution by the Founders because they realized it would be oppressive and corrupt (it is). Most of the people, the vast majority won’t have the vaguest ability to comprehend this basic concept of rights reserved to he people. The ulterior motives of political elitists who are aligned with pacs designed to create powerful wealth centers enabling them to control the government and consequently the general population to their own advantage. They do this via Normalcy Conditioning; a methodical presentation of system or ideal based on a false premise, frequently over a protracted period with endorsement from various groups with a vested financial interest until it becomes general accepted as normal and proper which it is not!!! The results should be obvious but are clouded by all manner of political diatribe. All these erroneous ideas have resulted in chaotic political campaigning and a financial Armageddon from which we may never recover – $21 trillion in current debt along with $121 trillion of non-funded ongoing obligations. Good Luck with that!!!!
    R T Poet, Minneapolis Minnesota

    Liked by 1 person

  23. That may well be true (and probably is), but the license also came into effect for tax purposes. The 16th Amendment was ratified and the tax break for married couples was eventually created, but they didn’t want to give that to just anyone. Hence the license. Glad the racist reason was done away with, and wish we went to the FAIR Tax so the second wasn’t needed either. It does help with survivor benefits and medical issues, but a quick-form could be created (and why should those only be for married people?)

    Liked by 1 person

  24. In some ways the government has there hands too much on our business I say some of it is ok and not ok like on automobiles 2much of things to go wrong or cause recalls I had it with state sales tax they spend more than you owe to pester one for not paying what is so wrong dark skin or white as in Levittown ny no negro could own a home there the color does not rub off nursing home I live some very dark skin workers I have nearly 32 year relations with a lady very fine personality we both respect all for who they are race born where or else we never married our business only is it sin no living togher shaking up as is said we are not your average senor senorita wine and dine alcohol drugs at ristorantis the simple life basically autos are too much$$$$$$$$ governments regulations we could surely do nicer if more simple I was usarmy draftee they know more about us than we realize is it good bad depends as I see it but look at all the USA troubles our southern border guns mass shootings crime no punishment at time legal drugs alcohol is one the trouble it causes buy they get $$$$$ from it thank you if possible have a nice day if volks did some things better would we have as many laws I don’t it but volks are well

    Like

  25. There is a comment about fornicating because they didn’t have a marriage license. My in-laws think the same but are clearly wrong because Adam and Eve didn’t have a marriage license and neither did Joseph and Mary. Was Jesus a bastard then? I think not! Don’t let politicians and churches yank your chain, they’re just people same as you and me.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Many good opions on married couples I think the government at times goes too far or does not do enough you do the crime do the time or not proper punishment always Judas look at our USA president we now have our southern border mess I d rather have Donald trump we live in a plastic world plastic surgery people politicians plastic automobiles there is so much wrong with our society government or done wrong I could go on and on is it all bad no some of it is what volks do or not do that causes laws to be made thank you

    Like

  27. Another reason marriage license law came into be is the Mormon and Muslim faiths they practice plural marriage, so the government require marriage licenses because they wanted come up with a lawful reason to throw these people in jail.

    Like

Leave a comment