Don’t need to be married to have sex.
Don’t need to be married to live together.
Don’t need to be married to have children.
And a girl doesn’t need to be married to force the man to pay for supporting any children she has, no matter who else might really be the father.
This being the case, why should the state “marry” anyone? For sentimental reasons? Why?
(Don’t get me wrong: I believe in marriage in a sane society, one in which having a child out of wedlock and living with a man out of wedlock, were social stigmas. But in our anything goes society, the state needs to get out of marriage or we should return to the old tried and true mores.)
And this is why marriage is truly a religious rite rather than something the state gives permission for.
This being the case, why should the state “marry” anyone? For sentimental reasons? Why?
What is the history of gov't licensing of marriage? I suspect it is not very old.
Reading it, and the comments, bring us all, full circle, back to certain biological and social truths.
1.Men are not mindless animals.
2.Women do not spontaneously self-impregnate themselves.
It is the divorce, the estates, the children that require legal status, even tribal peoples recognized marriage law, and followed it, when dad/hubby died, there were established laws based on every one's legal status as a family.
Marriage was taken over by the state as part of the Enlightenment project to deprive the Church and family of their roles in society.