So far as secular law is, or should be, concerned, the marriage license is the license for two parties to form a contract of a specific kind. This contract allows either party to the contract to engage obligations to which both are bound. In other words, each person who is a party to the contract grants the other an unlimited power of attorney. In most states it gives the parties to the contract joint ownership of all property and joint responsibility for all debts, although we still have those jurisdictions where there are rather complex rules about property. It establishes rules of inheritance for property of the partners to the contract which are significantly affected by the existence of the contract.

Few other forms of contract require a license, but many "contracts of association," such as some kinds of business partnerships or incorporations, do require registration with civil authhorities in order to be recognized, which amounts to about the same as a license. Most contracts of association do ultimately result in a license to do business as a partnership or corporation, and when legally formed do subject the parties to more or less intense scrutiny by civil authority.

The civil interest here is that there are significant opportunities for abuse of the agreement (think abandonment, as just one example) that could leave substantial burdens and damages to the community as a whole. If one party is left with a debt that was contracted jointly, it frequently ends up that the debt cannot be paid.

A relatively minor corollary of the marriage contract is that children may be produced, or by other means "integrated" into the communal property; and by being a party to the civil contract of marriage the burden of raising and caring for any such children is, by their agreement, the joint responsibility of the parties to the contract. The existence and documenting that a contractual agreement exists enables the intervention of civil authority should either partner to the contract attempt to abandon this responsibility. In the technical sense of the law in many jurisdictions, the children are a property of the marriage, and are little different than any other property. Whether this is a "barbaric" attitude, it is an implied "sense of the meaning" for many states.

It must be noted that there is NO civil requirement that the parties to a civil marriage contract MUST have children.

It does get a little complicated, but historically the civil marriage license is a result of changes made fairly early in US history that were meant to prevent bonded slavery. In general, it is unlawful for a "person" to make a "perpetual contract" that bonds the person to the "service of another" without some provision for an "expiration" (for a specific period) or inclusion of "conditions of release." (pay off the debt, e.g.) Since the marriage contract is a contract of perpetual servitude it required the creation of a "new class of contract" to make the civil marriage agreement "legal." This didn't exactly happen as a conscious step, but has evolved in civil law in the various jurisdictions. For any other purpose, the civil marriage contract would be illegal in most jurisdictions.

(One of the reasons that corporate law has dominated US Supreme Court actions is that it was a little fuzzy how to distinguish a "corporate person" from an "individual person." Different rules do apply, and have been mostly defined by Supreme Court decisions.)

Most religions have their own "sacraments of marriage," and until fairly recently were all that was required. You registered your intent to marry with the church, and they kept the records. The "vows of sacrament" typically are much broader in their lists of "shalls" and "shalt nots," but from the legal standpoint are something entirely separate from the civil concern.

The recent attempts in several US states to rewrite their state constitutions to define marriage is an attempt to "legitimize" the sacraments of marriage in the civil law. If successful, it legitimizes the civil control of sacraments in general, and would, as an example, be a precedent for requiring a license to perform other sacraments. You perform a public service, you need a license. You need a license, the civil authority defines what you must do to get it, and how you may perform your "service." Scary?

To make a civil contract, it is necessary that the parties to the contract be "real persons," of sound mind, entering without duress, and all other such requirements as may be found in the law. To make certain persons ineligible to enter any contract requires that the persons be defined as "not real persons" in the context of the laws regulating that form of contract. Students of history will recognize this as one of the same pretexts commonly used to justify slavery not long ago. It is quite clear, from recent local rhetoric, that this is the intent of some in my area.

Several of the states have proposed that their "new constitution" should prohibit recognizing "civil unions" that are legal in "any other jurisdiction." This clearly violates the US Constitution's prohibition against any state law that hinders interstate commerce or the free travel of citizens in all the states. (But this one has so many violations, it's probably already trashed.)

There has been much talk about how recognizing "civil unions" would require businesses to offer "family and dependents insurance" and other benefits, and it would certainly bankrupt all the businesses. In most cases there is no legal requirement for a business to offer insurance for dependents of any marriage. That is done simply because it's "necessary" in order to get people to work for them.

About the only statutory benefit of being married is the option of filing a joint income tax return.

Asking for a law to enforce a sacrament amounts to an admission that members of a religion cannot exert the necessary influence to enforce it for their own members. (i.e. their faith has failed, and their church has failed in its ministry.)

Asking for a law to enforce a sacrament admits that the civil authority has the power, authority, and ability to regulate all sacraments. (Very dangerous?)

Asking for a law to force those not of ones own faith to follow the sacraments of any religion is just plain bigotry.

Other than that, I have no opinion.

John