Talk:Marriage license

Introduced by Maximinus II?

From Lactantius: "Eunuchs and panders made search everywhere, and no sooner was any comely face discovered, than husbands and parents were obliged to withdraw. Matrons of quality and virgins were stripped of their robes, and all their limbs were inspected, lest any part should be unworthy of the bed of the emperor. Whenever a woman resisted, death by drowning was inflicted on her; as if, under the reign of this adulterer, chastity had been treason. Some men there were, who, beholding the violation of wives whom for virtue and fidelity they affectionately loved, could not endure their anguish of mind, and so killed themselves. While this monster ruled, it was singular deformity alone which could shield the honour of any female from his savage desires. At length he introduced a custom prohibiting marriage unless with the imperial permission; and he made this an instrument to serve the purposes of his lewdness."[1]

I haven't come up with good search terms to track down secondary sources, and this may be the sort of inference from a primary source I shouldn't make here. Nonetheless it sounds to me as if the foundation of the institution in Roman law, the presumptive precedent for so many others, indicates the purpose of the marriage license as for droit de seigneur. Wnt (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad citations

The citations are of intolerably poor quality. The Coontz NYT reference is an opinion piece, not a fact-checked article which is subject to corrections of fact by the publisher. The reference to the eugenics journal does not appear to support the statement to which it is attached. The result is distinctly POV, making this appear to be a political propaganda piece. I move that either better references replace these, or the statements they support should be removed. Aminorex (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Not only is the Coontz NYT reference not fact checked, but the claims based on it are manifestly false. The early marriage license was a defense against charges of bigamy, or demonstration of a special dispensation to marry. They were liberalizations of marriage, not restrictions upon it. "Marriage licenses from their inception have sought to establish certain prohibitions on the institution of marriage.".....! If you look at the timings of the various marriage licensing statutes, you'll see that ten states never passed them (licenses are not required today in Alabama or Texas, for instance, and were not required in Georgia until the 1990s), many states passed their marriage licensing laws long before they passed anti-miscegenation laws (much of New England), some repealed their anti-miscegenation laws before passing marriage licensing laws (Pennsylvania, for instance, passed its marriage licensing law 225 years after repealing its race law, while Florida passed its marriage licensing law the year after its race law was invalidated (1968 and 1967, respectively).) Few marriage licensing laws are passed during the period when anti-miscegenation laws are at their peak. The Coontz article contains no specific support for its claims, and there is considerable counter-evidence. As such, I am deleting the claims as inadequately sourced.--Jamesofengland (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Page title

The page title is spelled "licence" but the lead section spells it "license". Perhaps changing one of these would be in order? A412 (Talk * C) 20:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Currently the article title is "Marriage license". "Marriage licence" would be better. "C" is typically used for the noun, "S" for the verb, like "advice"/"advise". cagliost (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate concerning legal marriages in the UK

Since the Marriage Act of 1836 Roman Catholic and Nonconformist Ministers can register marriages so it is plain wrong to say that people can only be married legally in Angican churches and otherwise they have to respect the rules of civil marriages. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

@PhilomenaO'M: I would say that as currently worded the Article is substantially correct in the way it deals with Roman Catholic and Nonconformist marriages. Marriages in the Church of England and the (disestablished) Church in Wales take place through church procedures which are sanctioned by the State, but do not rely upon the presence or intervention of the civil registrar. Roman Catholic and Nonconformist marriages require the intervention of the local Registrar, who will have to attend in person, unless a person (who may be a member of the congregation) has been proposed by the church and appointed by the Registrar to act as "Authorised Person" for that Church.

However, this Article, so far as it relates to England and Wales, is inadequate and needs to be rewritten to draw out these points more clearly.Ntmr (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Another assertion in the Article, so far as it relates to England and Wales, which seems to me questionable is the suggestion that the Marriage Certificate has replaced the entry in the Parish Register as the proof of the marriage. A birth, marriage or death certificate states that it is a "certified copy" of the "entry" that has been made in the register. If the relevant person made the entry in the register but failed to issue a certificate at the time, the marriage (or other life event) could still be proved by the issue of a certificate at a later time. I think that one change which was effected in 1837 was that Marriage Registers had to take a standard form, with the church retaining one copy, and returns being made to the registration authorities. Further, even before 1837 the officiating clergyman would issue a certificate to the couple. Again, the detail of this needs to be set out much more accurately.Ntmr (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marriage license. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120125092827/http://www.marriage-licences.com/ to http://www.marriage-licences.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Marriage license.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Issued to the bride?

> Since 1837, the proof of a marriage has been by a marriage certificate, issued at the ceremony; before then, it was by the recording of the marriage in a parish register.

I seem to remember that the certificate is issued to the bride, not to the couple. It is her proof, should she be widowed and have children, that she was married. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:ee9c:7a00:b473:7f68:e99c:7305 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)