The French have got it right: all marriages, to be seen as legal, must be performed by a civil servant (usually a mayor or the equivalent). If people also want a religious ceremony, it's their own affair; but the civil marriage is THE one that is recognized by the state.

We have the same thing here in Quebec: when a priest oversees a marriage, he doubles as a civil servant, but the marriage itself is first and foremost a state affair, a legally binding contract between two individuals.

This kinda brings us to the topic of 'what is marriage in general'.

Is the focus 'how can we pay the bills together, and maybe enjoy a bit of romance and decent sex?'

Is it primarily romantic, 2 people determined to stay together because of 'the crush feeling' despite stressors of finances and possible sexual incompatibilities?

Or is marriage primarily sexual, while making allowances for sexual compatibility (or not) and 'paying the bills together' (ot not)?

Whatever it is today, it was clearly born out of a practical view on a biological imperative.

The founding of a new family by marriage meant that new babies would be born, carrying the genes of the grandparents. That new family would also take with it part of the material wealth of said grandparents (either immediately or by inheritance), and so it was in everyone's interest to secure the best deal possible on all accounts. The bride and groom must look like they can produce healthy babies and they must have the financial means and/or the personal resources to raise the next generation without everyone ending up dead. If the bride and groom liked each other so much the better, since a harmonious couple is more likely to be successful than one where strife is constant, but as so many arranged marriages showed throughout history, it was not the principal point.

As societies became more affluent, individuals became more and more able to make it in life without being dependent on their family. This allowed marriages to be considered by the couple instead of their respective families, but the general idea was usually still to found a family. 

As with many ancient structures, the initial purpose of this institution has evolved and morphed into something different; reproduction is no longer such an important aspect of marriage (or perhaps I should say "such a universal aspect", since it is still at the core of many cultures' view on the matter). More and more we see marriages which are just about two persons loving each other and vowing to spend their life together. This made the eventual development of same-sex marriage a no-brainer.

When kids are desired but direct reproduction is impossible, we see couple adopt children and them their values (if not their genes), thus transposing the primal biological drive into a more moral and intellectual one (but still with the basic idea of raising the next generation).  

Marriage evolves. Good thing too, because I didn't have to bring five cows to my father-in-law to obtain his permission to marry his daughter!

Did it really say "salary"? The usual translation of Romans 6:23 is "For the wages of sin is death ..."

Maybe the church was in an affluent area.

How well did that work for Marie Antoinette?  


Yes I know it's apocryphal.  

I think that's alot of the issue.. it has changed.  Back 500 years ago, the law was centered around religious values, and most people in a given region had the same value set.   It made sense to have marriage be the same in a spiritual, religious, and legal sense.   There was also certainly an element of the woman being unable to provide for her children without 'forcing' the man to do so for her.  

Now, we have freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and if not equal rights, at least a society where anyone can make it on their own if they choose.     Heck, you can even have a family on your own (through either adoption of artificial means) if you want.  

In legal terms, I think the focus should be 'person I share my financial and legal life with'.   I don't see any reason why religious beliefs should have anything to do with inheritance, health insurance, or child custody.

 In personal/relgious terms, it should be whatever the two people involved want it to be, as long as both agree and there are no sheninigans going on.