Even if it's just a social ceremony, the government should not give it special legal allowance. The government doesn't recognize Quinceañeras or bar mitzvahs.

If you believe that marriage has an important legal function, it's also not fair to preclude polygamists from getting those same legal utilities.

A much better generalized solution is to expand the purview of contract law to allow it to do everything marriage does.

> bar mitzvahs

The government does recognize a legal "coming of age" in several cases (at least in the U.S.).

- Driving a car (restricted at 15 years and some months, open at 16)

- Entering the Majority (18)

- Can enter the military (18, or 17 with some restrictions)

- Can have Sex (rules vary by state, but is generally 16-18 with various limits)

- Can drink (21)

etc.

It just so happens that these legal coming-of-age points don't specifically align with any religious coming-of-age. The two are divested from each other due to various pre-existing cultural forces. But it's completely conceivable in some alternate universe that the two are conflated and one enters the majority legally at the same time as going through a "traditional" Sacrament of Confirmation.

At first I thought of it jokingly, but it is actually related - you can add to this list minimum age for politicians: representatives (25), senators (30), and potus (35). It doesn't affect many people, of course, but it is age-based freedoms implemented by the guv.

Private contract law cannot enable foreigners to come live with their spouses in the US, or grant spousal testimony privilege in court.

Marriage need not be a "government thing" in the modern sense, with all the legal distinctions we currently have. Marriage is inherently a legal thing, in the sense that it's a contract between people.

Marriage confers very special rights, such as permanent residency or social security inheritance, that you cannot obtain through private contracts. Therefore the government has to be involved.

this is the crux of the issue in that government policy is, in large part, based upon a private contract. neither government nor judeo-christian sects (which, if we're honest, is whom we have in view when we speak of "religion") seem to be able to grasp the full implications of this.

State is a prerequisite for law, except in a libertarian's dorm-room fantasies.

It depends on your definitions. If you consider all legal systems to be "states," including primitive tribal ones, decentralized ones, etc., then yes, "state is a prerequisite for law" is a tautology. But today, "state" usually refers to a relatively large and relatively centralized organization governing a well-specified region that is recognized by other such states. Using that definition, a state is very clearly not a prerequisite for law.

The context that allows a system of laws to operate doesn't just spring forth spontaneously from a vacuum. Rather, it exists because we have a government based on the rule of law.

You didn't address any of the specifics in my comment.

That makes us even.

I addressed yours directly and in detail. Your claims depend on your definitions.

marriage certainly predates Christianity. Therefore marriage shouldn't be associated with Christianity or Islam or whatever. Marriage is a social construct before being a religious one.

you're conflating "Christianity" with "religion" though. it was addressed above but it bears repeating, social and religious constructs were inextricable in antiquity. the concept of separating them is fairly modern.

That really depends how far back you go and where you look. I'm sure I could find as many counter-examples as examples.

fair point.