ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

My understanding that even historically, marriages were not historical in definition.  In fact, there are still many countries in the world where you don’t need a license to be married.

If my european history is right, it was only after the council of Trent in the mid 16th century that the Roman Catholic church made is necessary to get a license.

There is no reason for it to be the way it is, other than repeating history.

There are many reasons for marriage to be the way it is (e.g. existing only when the state recognizes and documents that it has ocurred).  I will repeat some of the very important reasons already discussed:

In divorce proceedings, clear unambiguous proof of marriage (a marriage license) prevents a deadbeat defendant from claiming there was no marriage and that thus he (or she) has no child support obligations.

Government or employment benefits designed to benefit a surviving spouse require some kind of proof of marriage to prevent fraud (multiple women claiming to be the widow of a deceased man, for example).

Prevention of polygamy.  If there is no state record of a marriage, it is a simple matter for someone to marry one person in one church and another person in a different church.

Why did the council of Trent require a marriage license?  Presumably there was at least problem that this measure was designed to solve.  Nowadays surely even more problems would arise if marriages were no longer recognized and documented by the state.