In 1780 the federal govt, and the military was already necessarily in the business of deciding on the validity of the marriages of GIs.
Another good point. Although with an all volunteer army, you might say that service is now a privilege and as such the military may require a military marriage license, like requiring feet with arches. Trust me I know that wouldn’t happen under or current administration.
I know JAG law isn’t always consistent with civilian law.
Just a thought.
This is true, but its also true that such benefits are for the posterity of the man(his children) not just the wife that produced them.
Abandoning all benefits under the title of “marriage” and instead replacing them with family(child rearing) benefits might be the economic sensible thing to do.
After all why should the state or an employer or society at large care where or not your bonded to a particular woman? Women work for themselves now. What matters is your children.