Probably.
The early church and Protestant Reformers certainly seemed to think it was not binding if performed without the blessing of the paterfamilias in addition to being a violation of the fifth commandment.
Circumventing authority is seldom recognized as honoring that authority, whether the context is secular or spiritual.
Consider Numbers 30 for more info.
Some more context here, courtesy of Logos.
"The exegetical arguments for requiring paternal blessing rest on several layers of biblical reasoning that reformers synthesized into a coherent case.
The foundational argument derives from the Fifth Commandment. Since honoring parents consists principally in obedience to them in all things “in the Lord,” and marriage represents a matter of such profound importance to one’s entire life that it exceeds the judgment of children, those who marry without parental consent cannot claim to honor their parents in “the most momentous case.” This transforms the commandment from a general principle into a specific prohibition.
Multiple Old Testament passages establish that parents—not children—possess the authority to arrange marriages. God gave parents explicit precepts concerning settling their children in marriage: “Thou shalt not take of their daughters unto thy sons” (
Ex. 34:16); “thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son” (
Dt. 7:3); and “Take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands” (
Jer. 29:6). These commands would be meaningless unless children remained subject to parental power, especially in contracting marriage.
The law of seduction provides the most forceful evidence. When a man seduced an unbetrothed maiden, he was required to endow her and take her as wife—“If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins” (
Ex. 22:17). If the father’s consent remained necessary even for a defiled daughter whose dishonor marriage would cover, it must apply far more stringently to an untouched and pure daughter.
Finally, by parity of reasoning from
Numbers 30:4, where the father can void the daughter’s vow to God, he must also possess authority over marriage—a promise made to men rather than to God."
So when I said 'probably', I'm trying to also factor in confounding variables as they come to mind (e.g. not being under your father's roof in the case of estrangement, the father not being a believer and wishing his believing daughter to not marry a believing husband, and so on). But generally speaking, yes, I think there's biblical merit that suggests it's dishonoring in the best case scenario or null and void in the worst case scenario where a father's blessing is not sought and obtained for his daughter's hand in marriage.
