Stephanie Coontz, a historian, documented what marriage used to exist for.
Marriage in the 'olden days' was a web of extended family obligations. For the upper classes, its purpose was to magnify wealth and power. For the lower, to choose a spouse who could contribute sweat or material goods to the small business that was each household ( farming, cottage industry included).
Gradually with industrialisation and the movement of jobs outside the home, love replaced the communal economic imperatives as the glue between husbands and wives, striking two blows to the institution.
First, romantic love isn't known for its long-lasting adhesive properties. Second, no-one is as deeply invested in a marriage as the two people in it.
The continuing argument against same-sex marriage ( or legal contracts) is a no-brainer.
The Church throughout the middle ages was more consumed with the consumation of the rich marriages as this is how the Church got most of its fortune.
In Britain the ideal of having a 'vocation' in the Church was a choice as one son would/could choose the Army, the family business ( landowners) or the church. It was not NOT a 'spiritual' calling. ( See "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austin).
The religious orders of all colours ( not just Christian) have always seen the need to control the woman. If they controlled her through her 'right' to marriage, bear children, closet her in her father's care then her husband's , they would have control over the great wealth of most lands. This is still clearly witnessed within the 'kingdoms' of Saudia Arabia et al.
Once women got control over who they marry, and then eventually over their own children ( not until the beginning of the 20 Century) they could then start to have a say over work, money, and then choice of representation...Finally in most Western Nations by the 1920's. ( Australia and New Zealand being the first two to give suffarage to women).
The importance of the 1960's was NOT the sexual revolution per se, however because of the right of women to control their own fertility (ie contraception..the Pill), the sexual revolution came along for the ride.
With this final right extending to the right to abortion the Church lost a great chunk of its power. The Christian church that is.
While guilt and blame are still the heavy burden for most religious minded women, foisted upon them by the (male) Church leaders, there will be a continuation of the power that once was.
What the new fundamentalist/Evangelical Christian faiths do is revert to 'type'. They enjoy in a perverse way the fundamentalism of Islam and other such faiths. Seeing the continued control of women, their choices, their suffarage and their bodies means the ancient faiths still wield unholy control of the nations.
What the ( especially American) Evangelists do is to re-gain the horror of the
imaginary friend's displeasure at women's freedom to enjoy and hanker after sex without the worry of pregnancy, castigation or choice.
So the idea of continuing to hold to the 'sacredness' of marriage between a 'man and a woman' is historically nonsense and at the best a furphy.
(Actually it is completely and utterly bullshit, but I was trying to stay measured and calm throughout this post).
Hence the notion of gay marriages being wrong, abortion being against god (abortion has always been an option, legal or not, for women from time immemorial), or sex before marriage being 'sinful' ( it has always happened and always will) is nothing but a return to the control by Church ( ie men over women).
Hence a friend's son is now involved in a strange religion of which he is now studying to be a pastor. The church is full of young married people ..some as young as 17, most married before 20 years of age. Because the sex urge is to be controlled by the Church the children are having children 'legally' within the bounds of their religious brainwashing.
My ex- son-in-law is now involved in another form of these American evangelicals. I talked to him last month to find out how he is 'travelling' in his life post marriage.
I asked him to 'testify' to me as he would to someone in the streets as he does once a week.
He made the mistake of asking a confirmed atheist questions of how I am without a god.
I wanted to answer how he wanted me to so he could go onto his next 'piece' but I didn't want him to feel insulted by my condescension.
Sadly I just confused and befuddled him. I do love him still, as he was a part of my family for several years. He is a good person. He is a soft and gentle man. But..
He is judgemental of others who do not believe in the Bible as the 'truth'.
He is judgemental of women who have sex outside marriage.
He is judgemental of those who cannot claim Jesus as their saviour.
He is ...hurting, lost, trying to find a way out of his disappointment.
I held him to me and told him that he is a good person.
He said: "Only God is good. I am nothing but filth in comparison".
I said: "But isn't everything your god creates good?"
He stood back and stared at me. I wanted him to know that even on HIS God's terms...he is good. That his 'god' died for him...and that is how precious he is.
Somewhere there was a disconnect between what he was reading in his Bible ( that is all he reads now..refuses to watch TV), the understanding of the forgiveness and love contain ( in parts) therein, and the horror of believing in something that was written peace-meal over hundreds of years and re-hashed over centuries.
I left him with my love. I have nothing else to give him.