I've up voted though i vehemently disagree as I would love to engage in a discussion on that last sentence... I know many people who say that, but it always seems to end up a very narrow and uncommon definition somewhere.

In particular I find a lot of people Think of "marriage" as an external event driven thing - a ceremony, a signing, the guests, potentially the name change, and of course the laws and such.

Anyhoo, Do you essentially propose that no two people who trust each other would marry, and if so, why?

It feels like such a strongly universal statement that it cannot possible hold true...

It's not enough for the two people to trust each other because they have parents friends etc. These people, and societies norms are a huge influence on the decision to get married.

But I do think at the end it all boils down to trust. If marriege was not an external event, then why the ceremony? The rings? Etc? It's full of symbolism describing and alluding to your responsibilities and how you're going to be judged for not abiding to them.

So yes, in a world where two people have total trust, and society is more lenient in it's pressuring of norms marriege would be obsolete.

Assigning consequence to relationships is not a sign of distrust.