> What counts as a "real marriage"?

I wonder if this goes against or supports the Forum rules about family friendliness...

"A relationship of husband and wife involving mutual rights of sexual intercourse, life in common, and an enduring union. The last two characters distinguish marriage, respectively, from concubinage and fornication. The definition, however, is broad enough to comprehend polygamous and polyandrous unions." Pretty much anyone from any culture in history would recognize this as a marriage. It's just foolish to assume that marriage can be changed at this point--in precisely the same way that it's foolish to try to come up with a new meaning of parenthood. It's an objective description. If we tried to change it, we'd end up with something that wasn't really marriage (or parenthood) at all, which would defeat the whole point.

>Is it defined religiously? If so, is a marriage officiated by a Baptist of equal value to one performed by a Roman Catholic? What about a Jewish or Hindu wedding?

It can be defined religiously. Christians and Jews (and probably Muslims, though I don't know for sure) define it as in Genesis 2:24, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Many Christians in particular include it as a sacrament. This is why I wouldn't hold the contractually identical relationship of a gay couple as having the same value, although it certainly would have some value.

> When Mormons allowed polygamous marriages, were these "real"?

Of course.

> Were marriages in Britain before 1563 "real"?

Of course.

>Before the Council of Trent, weddings were an entirely secular affair, and it was only a "redefinition" of marriage turned it into a religious event.

This isn't correct, even limiting the scope to Catholic marriages. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm

> If it isn't a religious definition, then what?

An aspect of human life that has been around at least as long as humans have. See above.

> Of course, if you believe that the state should have no involvement in marriage means giving up approximately 1,400 legal benefits from inheriting intestate, immigration rights*, child support... the list is endless. But, having said that, if you want a wedding with which the state has nothing to do, it's easy to arrange: simply don't apply for a marriage licence.

The site you linked to noted the problem: "Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for." I in no way intended "no state involvement in marriage" to mean "no marriage," i.e. just abolishing marriage law and wishing everyone tough luck. I meant abolishing it and allowing persons to arrange and contract their own marriages as they see fit.