Respectfully, you're probably mistaken. Divorce Lawyers make as much as they do, largely because they are the only class of laborers who spend much of their time keeping abreast and informed of all the changes in law, regulation, precedent, and interpretation by which the shifting sands of legislative and judicial whim alter the definition of "marriage" during the span of a typical marriage.
By contrast -- were the legitimate causes for marital dissolution, and the the legal responsibilities of each party in case of dissolution, spelled out in a private "Partnership Contract" (which, if sanctified by the blessing of a religious official, could be considered a "marriage" within that couple's church, without any need for State control over the Institution), those clauses would be the same 20 years later as the day the Contract was adopted. The validity of the Contract could be contested, of course, but assuming that a court upheld the validity of the Contract the terms of dissolution would already be spelled out in black and white -- thus reducing substantially the typical wrangling over "state family law and precedent" (irrelevant; the private contract says what it says) and therefore the billable hours for Divorce Lawyers.
As usual, State domination of an institution benefits Lawyers far more than Private establishment thereof. But I'm sure that Divorce Lawyers can afford the pay-cut; and if not -- who cares?
As to the individual who suggested that this "flies in the face of all human history" -- quite the opposite. Both Abraham and Sarah, and Moses and Zipporah, were married by Religion and Clan -- not the State, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the definition and establishment of their marriage. Were their marriages "illegitimate", because they were Private arrangements rather than State-licensed ones?? If one believes the Bible, the normative practice throughout most of Human History is the Private establishment of Marriage, with the Courts of Government only becoming involved in case of dissolution of contract. The monopolistic Establishment and Definition of Marriage by the State is a phenomenom of recent origin.
And a dangerous phenomenom at that -- for what the State has the power to Define, the State has the power to Destroy (by definition).
If Privatized Marriage is good enough for the Patriarchs of the Faith, perhaps it is good enough for us.
If Privatized Marriage is good enough for the Patriarchs of the Faith, perhaps it is good enough for us.
Don't you see, OrthodoxPresbyterian, that you're argument leads to the creation of homosexual marriages?
The best defense of heterosexual marriage is a good offense - passing a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as only a heterosexual institution.