Where did you get that from? It wasn't even true of the Hebrew patriarchs!
The Biblical/Talmudic tradition of a sanctified marriage contract between a man and a woman goes back to the Hammurabi Code. The Talmud largely altered it in prescribing divorce procedures and in expanding women's rights. (For instance, I think it's defined in the Talmud under the kiddushin that in Jewish law women have a right to sex at least twice weekly; men have no such right.) After the kiddushin, the bride was sanctified (dedicated to the groom in the eyes of G-d) but not actually married until the nissuin. However the kiddushin, being the sanctification, was sufficient to prescribe the death penalty for adultery even though the actual marriage had not yet taken place, because the sanctification had taken place and thus, adultery was an offense against G-d. (See Dueteronomy - lots o' death penalties in Dueteronomy. Also, this bound the woman and other men on pain of death, but death was generally not enforceable against the groom.) I'm sure there are Jewish people in this forum who could better explain it, but suffice it to say the Jewish tradition of sanctified marriage between a man and a woman comes from the Hammurabi Code, was somewhat modified in the Talmud, and was later modified again (combining the kiddushin and the actual marriage ceremony, which term I've forgotten but which became {I think} the nissuin) in the Middle Ages. But only a man may offer kichah, and only a woman may accept. (Note that this is NOT a bride price, but is rather a token symbolizing the contract under G-d.)
Prior to Sinai marriage was (I think) an extension of pillagesh, and if I remember correctly was divided into free women (who were married only as long as they wished to be, as they needed no grounds for "divorce") and unfree (who were basically concubines owned by the man.) Pillagesh was not a covenant with G-d, had no quantitative definition, and lineages followed the line of the father. But rulers in any case are the absolute worst place to look for traditions, since they have the power to allow themselves virtually any transgressions they so wish.
Apologies to our Jewish forumites if I've mangled any of that. And again, this is as far as I'm concerned ancient history, to be followed only as far as one wishes to follow ALL Orthodox teachings, and certainly not to be enforced on non-Jews in any case.