In partial response particularly to pdq.

Traditionally nearly all religions have their own sacraments and rules pertaining to the "holy union" of two persons. Most religions provide rules for declaring the intent to "marry," prescribe particular promises to be made, provide for witnessing by the congregation and blessing by the leader(s) of the faith. Church records of all this "sacred joining" have been kept "religiously" in the churches.

When civil authorities began to attempt to require Civil Licensing of marriages, there was tremendous complaint from the churches that the government was infringing in their religious rites.

The Civil justification for licensing, and requiring the public declaration of "an agreement to be married" is based on the right of the community to know when a "Civil partnership" is formed, since such partnership affects how the parties to the agreement are able and entitled to act in their Civil (legal) relationship with the rest of the community.

The principal way in which the Civil Marriage Contract affects the parties to the contract and the rest of the community with which they deal is in the ownership of and responsibility for property, the contracting of, and responsibility for repayment of, debts and obligations by either of the parties on behalf of the "partnership."

It has, in its legal intent, no "Sacred" value, anymore than the Civil filing of intent to form a corporation or any form of business partnership.

It is permitted by law, but NOT REQUIRED, that persons forming the association that is, unfortunately, named a Civil Marriage, may observe whatever sacrements, rites, and obligations their faith may separately impose.

It is permitted by law in most places that those who render the sacraments and rites of any faith may have those rites stand in lieu of the taking of oaths (or making of promises) before a Civil Authority, provided in most cases that parties to the "contract" include the minimum requirements of the law. This typically means that they each assert that they intend to take the Civil status required by the law, that they each do so freely and voluntarily, and that there are witnesses to their acceptance of the legal requirements of the contract.

The church/faith may add to the minimum declarations required by the Civil contract any and all additional promises, conditions, rites, and observances are appropriate to the Sacred Union demanded by their faith.

It has taken many years to get the distinction between Civil requirements and Sacred rites somewhat clear in the law, and many people have devoted a great deal of time and effort to assuring that the Civil law (for the most part) does not encroach on the Sacred rites of any religion. The job is imperfectly done in many places.

If the definition advanced by the "fundies" is to be taken seriously, that the Civil Marriage Contract and the Sacred Marriage Rites and Sacraments are interchangeably the same, then all existing Civil Marriages are illegal, since according to the Constitution:

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The prohibition against polygamous marriage is "justified" in the lawbooks as reflecting the need for the public to have clear knowledge of the ownership of property adherent to the marriage. IMO this is a farce, since this law is clearly the imposition of religious doctrine without satisfactory demonstration of an attendant Civil need; but nothing's perfect in this world - yet.

Most of the laws relating to Civil Marriage, and the dissolution of such contracts, relate quite specifically how the property and debts of the partners are affected by the Civil Contract. Even the custody of children treats them as a "property" of the marriage, (since this is the only legal pretext the CIVIL law has found to assert control over the childrens' welfare) which may explain some of the bizarre laws extant.

There is no good reason why persons who exist in the eyes of the law should not be able to form any CIVIL Contract of Association, whether corporate, partnership, or charitable trust, on the same basis as any other persons - unless one insists on imposing ONE RELIGION'S DOCTRINE on all the people.

John