Since the NJ ruling yesterday, and the Ford comments, and kos's post on the Ford comment, and... well, you get the idea... at least one
diary and a few comments have shown up suggesting that there ought to be two separate 'institutions' of marriage or similar to it. One would be for religious institutions (specifically the 'church' in the diary and some of the comments) and the other for the state. One religious, one legal. The rationale seems to be that marriage was originally a religious institution and then became something the state did.
So, to correct that misapprehension, here's some history:
Notes:
1. I used two major sources for this: Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell. Available from Amazon, and Christianity and the Making of the Modern Family: Ruling Ideologies, Diverse Realities by Rosemary Radford Ruether, likewise available from Amazon.
2. Props to pat of butter in a sea of grits and musing85 for providing some other material on another thread.
3. The only reason I know any of this is a class I took at the Chicago Theological Seminary a liberal/progressive seminary closely affiliated with of the United Church of Christ. If you want to see good, liberal and progressive theological education and church leaders, please show them some love.
Church and State
The first thing that needs to be remembered is that the idea of the church and the state being two separate institutions is fairly recent. In ancient Greece, Israel, or Rome, for example, there was no clear cut line. Likewise, for much of European history there has been intermingling of the church and the state. Now, we can say all we want that there's a problem with that, and I think most people here would agree that there should be a separation of the institutions of the church and the state. For much of European history, however, going back into the ancient world, however, we have to realize that the idea of such a separation wouldn't have made any sense. In many ways, the church and the state were different aspects of the same institution.
Greco-Roman Marriage under the Roman Empire
First, it's important to remember that the modern concept of family, a category where marriage often gets put, did not exist in the Greco-Roman world. Rather the concept of familia ruled. Familia referred to everything that was under the control of a male head, the paterfamilias. A woman, once married, moved to a new familia. That is, she was transferred to another authority (that of her husband). Marriage, in the Greco-Roman world, was very much a matter of transferring property. This idea of marriage as a business arrangement, and effectively an adoption of the woman by a new family, seems to have been quite common under the Roman Empire.
Later, marriage sine manu (without authority) would become common in the Empire. Under this form, the woman did not technically become the property of her husband. While this didn't make a major difference in the actual lives of women, it was an important conceptual change. It meant that women, not just their parents, had to consent to marriage, that women could sue for divorce, and that the 'right' of men to have sex with other women became more restrictive. Of course, other relationships (for men), such as concubinage, prostitution, etc., existed and were, in many cases, sanctioned.
Marriage was the only male-female relationship that was solemnized. During the Empire, weddings were performed in the bride's house in the presence of friends and family. The pronuba (matron of honor) would join the couple's hands, and the couple kissed. While religious rituals often occurred, and contracts often signed, they were not necessary for a legal marriage. Nor, in fact, was consummation. Rather, all that was required was the consent of both parties and maritalis affectio (marital affection, the intention to perservere in the marriage). If a couple met these requirements, and were not precluded from marriage based on kinship or legal status, the marriage would be legal.
The Early Church
Most early Christians continued to form heterosexual marriages. However, this was viewed as a compromise with the world. Celibacy was considered the most virtuous lifestyle, a practice that would have been considered quite odd by both Jews (who had a moral obligation to reproduce) and Greco-Roman pagans. Celibacy, however, was an ideal, and a rarely met one at that. While some monastics managed to acheive celibacy, large numbers of clergy (remembering that, in the early church, most monastics were not ordained) did marry, and, of course, even larger numbers of non-monastic lay-people married.
Marriage, however, wasn't really much of a concern to the church as an institution. The regulation and celebration of marriage was largely left up to local habits and customs, and hence were either common-law or mandated by what we might recognize as the state. Of course, this did not mean that marriages would not be blessed. Devout Christians would have blessings over fields, meals, births, deaths, houses, tools, and anything else that they might have. Indeed, it seems that there was little the church wouldn't bless. Church approval of or participation in a marriage, however, was completely unnecessary and irrelevant to the validity of that marriage.
This did not mean, however, that there were not Christian marriage codes. Monogamy, no divorce or remarriage, and sexual continence (at least during certain times) were prescribed. In fact, marriage regulations existed at least since the Council of Elvira (309 C.E.). However, these regulations only affected the couple's stance within the church, and had no rule over the creation or dissolution of the marriage. The teaching of the Roman church was that the man and the woman married one another, and the church, at most, blessed that marriage. The church could refuse that blessing, but that act alone would not void the marriage.
Hence, we might think of there as being two different ceremonies. The first, the legal ceremony (whether by common or statutory law) was the marriage. The second, performed by the church, was a blessing of that union.
The Fourth Lateran Council
The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) would finally attempt to truly regulate marriage in the Western Christian world (the relevant canons are 50-52).
A summary of the relevant canon (from the link above):
Clandestine marriages and witness to them by a priest are forbidden. Marriages to be contracted must be published in the churches by the priests so that, if legitimate impediments exist, they may be made known. If doubt exists, let the contemplated marriage be forbidden till the matter is cleared up.
And, if you're really interested, the actual canon:
Since the prohibition of the conjugal union in the three last degrees has been revoked, we wish that it be strictly observed in the other degrees. Whence, following in the footsteps of our predecessors, we absolutely forbid clandestine marriages; and we forbid also that a priest presume to witness such. Wherefore, extending to other localities generally the particular custom that prevails in some, we decree that when marriages are to be contracted they must be announced publicly in the churches by the priests during a suitable and fixed time, so that if legitimate impediments exist, they may be made known. Let the priests nevertheless investigate whether any impediments exist. But when there is ground for doubt concerning the contemplated union, let the marriage be expressly forbidden until it is evident from reliable sources what ought to be done in regard to it. But if anyone should presume to contract a clandestine or forbidden marriage of this kind within a prohibited degree, even through ignorance, the children from such a union shall be considered illegitimate, nor shall the ignorance of the parents be pleaded as an extenuating circumstance in their behalf, since they by contracting such marriages appear not as wanting in knowledge but rather as affecting ignorance. In like manner the children shall be considered illegitimate if both parents, knowing that a legitimate impediment exists, presume to contract such a marriage in conspectu ecclesiae (not clandestinely) in disregard of every prohibition. The parochial priest who deliberately neglects to forbid such unions, or any regular priest who presumes to witness them, let them be suspended from office for a period of three years and, if the nature of their offense demands it, let them be punished more severely. On those also who presume to contract such marriages in a lawful degree, a condign punishment is to be imposed. If anyone maliciously presents an impediment for the purpose of frustrating a legitimate marriage, let him not escape ecclesiastical punishment.
Still, however, the church was not the only body that could make rules regarding marriage, the state could do so as well. If we really wanted to find a time however, when marriage became a strictly religious ceremony, at least within the church, this council would be it.
What to do with This
As I said in the introduction, it is a common misconception that marriage was initially something that the church did, and only later did it become something that the state did. This, I hope I have shown, is untrue. The question is, so what?
It is important to remember that the state and custom predated the church in deciding what a marriage is, and have also had the power to do that, at least in the United States, for much (all?) of modern history. I believe that, if we base our ideas on the history of the question, marriage is the proper domain of the state. However, I also recognize that 'marriage' is a religiously charged word, and many people believe that marriage should be in the realm of the church (or, more broadly, religion). In fact, so charged is this word 'marriage', that I myself am being married in the church and not by the state.
I also think, though, that we should be clear about what 'marriage' is to be. If the goal with marriage-equality is to gain the rights and protections accorded modern heterosexual marriage, then perhaps there should be a more state-appropriate term, while religious institutions use 'marriage' (or the term 'marriage' should be handed to the state, and religious institutions should simply do blessings of those unions and/or have their own rite without sanction from the state). On the other hand, if the goal with marriage-equality is a conceptual equality, then the state (and society in general) should own up to the fact that it has long controlled the definition of marriage and the rest of us should stop pretending that the problem is a religious definition of marriage, for the religious definition of marriage began as a definition based upon a state definition.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that church history is full of rites that recognize same-sex relationships, whether friendships or, possibly, more sexual relationships (see Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe). This might be a reason to hand the term 'marriage' to the church in a conception as the blessing of a relationship, whether that relationship is sanctioned by the state or not. Do you want to get married? Fine, go to a church that recognizes its history as a blessing body that approves of all loving relationships (or, of course, the religious institution of your choice). Do you want the legal rights that have long gone with state-marriage? Fine, get the state to stop claiming that God gave it any power over love. Let the state figure out property, power-of-attorney, etc. Let God sanctify and bless.