There is a little more to it than that, the Catholic church could not impose total legal control over the regions that they controlled until the mid 1500s in regards to marriage, and even that left our England.
“Concluding in 1563, the Council of Trent decreed that
marriages previously contracted by verbal consent alone and without parental consent would be held valid, but in the future all marriages not celebrated in the presence of a priest and witnesses would be null and void.
This, in essence, abolished informal, private marriage on the European continent.
In England, after the Act of Supremacy in 1534 and England’s break with the Roman Catholic Church, England no longer recognized the canon law of the Roman Catholic
Church.
Therefore, at the time of the Council of Trent, because the English Reformation had already taken place, the results of the Council of Trent did not apply to England.
The Church of England, and the ecclesiastics who had jurisdiction to determine the validity of marriage, while generally requiring formal marriages, continued to allow marriages per verba de praesenti.
The canons of the Church of England, like those of the Catholic Church, created a distinction between a valid marriage which was legally binding on the parties and an
“illegal” marriage which, because it was not solemnized through the intervention of the church, was subject to ecclesiastical penalties. In addition, even though the Church of England recognized these marriages as valid, the lay or temporal courts under the civil law did not bestow full marital rights on the parties to such marriages, perhaps to impede the growth of clandestine marriages. The lay courts required publicity of the marriage in order
to endow the parties with certain marital rights.”
marriage isn’t just a catholic institution- Jews had practiced it for many years before- My points were that government ripped the act and sanctity of marriageo ut of God’s hands (irregardless of which religion practiced the ceremonies) and bastardized it to being a meaningless business proposal ie: propogating to create new generations of tax payers to support future government
The govenrment was the one not allowing unproductive marriages (It’s true that religiosu institutions didn’;t allow it iether- but the arguments are that ‘God and Christians are hatefuly because ‘they don’t allow gay peopel to marry’ when hte reality is that it was a government issue- a secualr issue- a financial issue- nothign to do with religion- so supporters of gay marriage don’t even have hteir facts right and are directign hteir hatred towards Christiansd hwne hte reality is that the laws agaisnt gay marriage had to do with secular reasons, not religious