I hope this isn't too silly a question -- I'm not totally Quaker adept ---- . Did Quakers have to apply for a license and/or make their intent public like non-Quakers or did they do that only within the church ? Thanks all -- Terri

Insofar as the early Friends lived in primarily Quaker communities, "declaring their marriage intentions" to the monthly meeting was, in effect, making their intentions known publicly. They did not apply for a marriage license from the government until more recent times. That said, this notion of needing a marriage license from the government is a relatively modern phenomenon, so I'm not sure how significantly this Quaker practice differed from that of other denominations. Historically, marriage was only a private, typically church-sanctioned, contract. (For that matter, even the Church has also only been in the marriage business for a few hundred years.) Sort of puts this whole "Should government sanction gay marriages?" question into a different light, but then, that's going off-topic... With the usual caveat that "official" Quaker practice may vary from yearly meeting to yearly meeting and from time to time, I believe the following guidance from the 1955 Philadelphia Yearly Meeting "Faith and Practice", pp. 79-80 is representative of modern Quaker practice: "The responsibilities of the persons to be married [include]... [t]o inform themselves of all the legal requirements of the state in which the marriage is to take place and the forms to be used. It is important for the contracting parties to consult with the licensing bureau in the county in which the marriage is to take place or with a member of the Committee of Oversight. The license form applied for must be the correct one for use in a Friends' wedding in which no clergyman participates. This must be made clear to the Clerk issuing the license. Because in some counties the proper license form is not immediately obtainable, it is important to attend to this matter at an early date." [Whereas a marriage is ostensibly a union ordained by God, I find this acquiescence to government authority interesting, especially when compared to the traditional Quaker libertarian attitudes towards other conflicts between conscience and governmental authority, e.g. with regard to mandatory military service. I wonder what a meeting would do if the government chose to prohibit such a marriage.] Jeff Palmer - jap@highstream.net * * * Quote of the Week: “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” -- David Hume -----Original Message----- From: Terri [mailto:taire@webtv.net] Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 10:27 AM To: QUAKER-ROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Q-R] marriage license/intents I hope this isn't too silly a question -- I'm not totally Quaker adept ---- . Did Quakers have to apply for a license and/or make their intent public like non-Quakers or did they do that only within the church? Thanks all -- Terri -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.0.0 - Release Date: 2/18/2005

I'll add a bit to Jeff Palmer's good response to this question. State marriage license laws varied considerably until the early twentieth century. South Carolina, for example, did not require marriage licenses until after 1900. States that required marriage licenses and also had Quaker populations exempted Friends from such requirements until after 1900. In Indiana, for example, Quakers did not have to obtain marriage licenses or register their marriages with county clerks until 1927. It appears that at times, however, monthly meetings did report their marriages to civil authorities. I'm told that some Quaker marriages conducted under the care of Middleton Monthly Meeting are recorded in the civil records of Columbiana County, Ohio. My sense is that this is exceptional. Tom Hamm >Insofar as the early Friends lived in primarily Quaker communities, >"declaring their marriage intentions" to the monthly meeting was, in effect, >making their intentions known publicly. They did not apply for a marriage >license from the government until more recent times. > >That said, this notion of needing a marriage license from the government is >a relatively modern phenomenon, so I'm not sure how significantly this >Quaker practice differed from that of other denominations. Historically, >marriage was only a private, typically church-sanctioned, contract. (For >that matter, even the Church has also only been in the marriage business for >a few hundred years.) Sort of puts this whole "Should government sanction >gay marriages?" question into a different light, but then, that's going >off-topic... > >With the usual caveat that "official" Quaker practice may vary from yearly >meeting to yearly meeting and from time to time, I believe the following >guidance from the 1955 Philadelphia Yearly Meeting "Faith and Practice", pp. >79-80 is representative of modern Quaker practice: > > "The responsibilities of the persons to be married [include]... [t]o >inform themselves of all the legal requirements of the state in which the >marriage is to take place and the forms to be used. It is important for the >contracting parties to consult with the licensing bureau in the county in >which the marriage is to take place or with a member of the Committee of >Oversight. The license form applied for must be the correct one for use in >a Friends' wedding in which no clergyman participates. This must be made >clear to the Clerk issuing the license. Because in some counties the proper >license form is not immediately obtainable, it is important to attend to >this matter at an early date." > >[Whereas a marriage is ostensibly a union ordained by God, I find this >acquiescence to government authority interesting, especially when compared >to the traditional Quaker libertarian attitudes towards other conflicts >between conscience and governmental authority, e.g. with regard to mandatory >military service. I wonder what a meeting would do if the government chose >to prohibit such a marriage.] > >Jeff Palmer - jap@highstream.net > * * * >Quote of the Week: "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at >once." -- David Hume > >-----Original Message----- >From: Terri [mailto:taire@webtv.net] >Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 10:27 AM >To: QUAKER-ROOTS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [Q-R] marriage license/intents > >I hope this isn't too silly a question -- I'm not totally Quaker adept ---- >. Did Quakers have to apply for a license and/or make their intent public >like non-Quakers or did they do that only within the church? > >Thanks all -- Terri > >-- >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.0.0 - Release Date: 2/18/2005 > > > > >==== QUAKER-ROOTS Mailing List ==== >Quaker-Roots Archives - Search List Messages From 1996 On >http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl