R+L=J v 75

[stateofdissipation]

Funny thing

The much maligned: "Marriage is not a legal matter not it is a religious matter" is a better support for polygamy than "Marriage was never made illegal"

We have seen a few marriages in the faith of the seven. We have not seen a marriage contract. We have not seen a marriage registry. We have not seen a marriage license.

http://www.livescien...f-marriage.html

State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States

Without marriage licenses, contracts, or central record keeping, how did or does the Faith of the Seven prevent polygamy?

An earlier poster noted the lack of recorded Targaryen polygamy did not mean it did not happen. Knowing me, I would have answered it does not prove it did either. I was wrong. Instead of seeing the obvious lack of any marriage documents, I only saw the unsupported statement.

To my knowledge marriage in the Seven Kingdoms accepted by couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.fin

Engaging in polygamy would be a simple matter of finding a sacred official. Getting away with it on the other hand may have proved a bit harder.

That being said. Is there still an argument that marriage was a legal matter?

[Eira Seren]

Funny thing

The much maligned: "Marriage is not a legal matter not it is a religious matter" is a better support for polygamy than "Marriage was never made illegal"

We have seen a few marriages in the faith of the seven. We have not seen a marriage contract. We have not seen a marriage registry. We have not seen a marriage license.

http://www.livescien...f-marriage.html

State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States

Without marriage licenses, contracts, or central record keeping, how did or does the Faith of the Seven prevent polygamy?

An earlier poster noted the lack of recorded Targaryen polygamy did not mean it did not happen. Knowing me, I would have answered it does not prove it did either. I was wrong. Instead of seeing the obvious lack of any marriage documents, I only saw the unsupported statement.

To my knowledge marriage in the Seven Kingdoms accepted by couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.fin

Engaging in polygamy would be a simple matter of finding a sacred official. Getting away with it on the other hand may have proved a bit harder.

That being said. Is there still an argument that marriage was a legal matter?

What about marriages that are made as political alliances, to align houses and secure allies? Any marriage made by the nobility is likely more a legal matter (it's a deal made in exchange for some form of commodity, physical or intangible). Any marriage made by royalty, even more so.

In Westeros any deal like this is considered a legally binding contract. Hence the reason Walder Frey not only takes it personally when Robb Stark breaks his betrothal, but gives Frey the perfect excuse to switch sides: contract broken, all terms are now off the table.

ETA: the reason that marriage has become an institution, and a matter for the state to become involved in (and control through licenses, etc) is because it is a money-maker for the state. As well as a means to regulate, keep the census, etc. Otherwise, who would care? Yet ministers can't just perform a ceremony and have a couple get legally married unless they fill out the paperwork and submit it. Perhaps GRRM hasn't given us the gritty details of what the Septons were required to do; the medieval Church and parish records would have sufficed in our world. The problem, imo, would be in the North, where there would be few records if using a Heart Tree. Probably someone --the lord, the Warden of the North, someone in charge would be advised for anyone who mattered.

[MtnLion]

To my knowledge marriage in the Seven Kingdoms accepted by couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.fin

Marriage is by definition a legal contract between groom and bride, by exchanging solemn vows to perform their duties. Once this is understood, one can easily see how the divorce process works. But for a church to turn away from what they considered a marriage, they need to annul the marriage; not recognizing that the vows could be voided.

Webster's definition:

the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

Funny thing

The much maligned: "Marriage is not a legal matter not it is a religious matter" is a better support for polygamy than "Marriage was never made illegal"

We have seen a few marriages in the faith of the seven. We have not seen a marriage contract. We have not seen a marriage registry. We have not seen a marriage license.

http://www.livescien...f-marriage.html

State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States

Without marriage licenses, contracts, or central record keeping, how did or does the Faith of the Seven prevent polygamy?

An earlier poster noted the lack of recorded Targaryen polygamy did not mean it did not happen. Knowing me, I would have answered it does not prove it did either. I was wrong. Instead of seeing the obvious lack of any marriage documents, I only saw the unsupported statement.

To my knowledge marriage in the Seven Kingdoms accepted by couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.fin

Engaging in polygamy would be a simple matter of finding a sacred official. Getting away with it on the other hand may have proved a bit harder.

That being said. Is there still an argument that marriage was a legal matter?

I guess it depends on how you define 'legal'. Umbers and Boltons apparently still practice the Right of First Night. That would suggest that in some cases, marriages have to be approved of or declared in advance to the local liege lord. Indeed, Bolton executes a man for failing to notify him of the marriage and thus preventing him from exercising his right. That would tend to indicate that the secular realm has a vested interest in the marriage, and it's not an entirely religious matter.

Maybe it's the North that sees marriage more legally. That's where we see the Right of First Night, and it's also where we see Ned stating that the Old Gods don't really have any particular marriage ceremony, and that it is the Seven who have all the rules. Another way to look at it, are there any cases in Westerosi history where a Targaeryan king needed to give approval/permission for his children to marry?

EDIT: It seems to me that the best 'proof' for legal permission being needed to marry would be Tyrion and Tysha. I don't think there is a reference to that marriage being annulled, other than Tywin, the Lord Paramount, deciding that it wasn't valid.

[Alia of the knife]

I guess it depends on how you define 'legal'. Umbers and Boltons apparently still practice the Right of First Night. That would suggest that in some cases, marriages have to be approved of or declared in advance to the local liege lord. Indeed, Bolton executes a man for failing to notify him of the marriage and thus preventing him from exercising his right. That would tend to indicate that the secular realm has a vested interest in the marriage, and it's not an entirely religious matter.

Maybe it's the North that sees marriage more legally. That's where we see the Right of First Night, and it's also where we see Ned stating that the Old Gods don't really have any particular marriage ceremony, and that it is the Seven who have all the rules. Another way to look at it, are there any cases in Westerosi history where a Targaeryan king needed to give approval/permission for his children to marry?

EDIT: It seems to me that the best 'proof' for legal permission being needed to marry would be Tyrion and Tysha. I don't think there is a reference to that marriage being annulled, other than Tywin, the Lord Paramount, deciding that it wasn't valid.

On the matter of the king giving his permission, I think this is where Martin deviates from real history, and no, it doesn't appear that they needed Aerys permission, or else he would have said no to all the powerful alliances growing aroubd him, (i.e. Stark/Tully, Stark/Berantheon), and Aerys took the Lannister heir out of the mix as well.

Edit: Perhaps that was the tacit agreement beteen House Targsryen in that they stayed out of the marriages of the nobles, and the Westerosi nobles stayed out of the business of the Targaryens.

[Eira Seren]

I guess it depends on how you define 'legal'. Umbers and Boltons apparently still practice the Right of First Night. That would suggest that in some cases, marriages have to be approved of or declared in advance to the local liege lord. Indeed, Bolton executes a man for failing to notify him of the marriage and thus preventing him from exercising his right. That would tend to indicate that the secular realm has a vested interest in the marriage, and it's not an entirely religious matter.

Maybe it's the North that sees marriage more legally. That's where we see the Right of First Night, and it's also where we see Ned stating that the Old Gods don't really have any particular marriage ceremony, and that it is the Seven who have all the rules. Another way to look at it, are there any cases in Westerosi history where a Targaeryan king needed to give approval/permission for his children to marry?

EDIT: It seems to me that the best 'proof' for legal permission being needed to marry would be Tyrion and Tysha. I don't think there is a reference to that marriage being annulled, other than Tywin, the Lord Paramount, deciding that it wasn't valid.

Good point; in this case, the lord is the one who decides whether the law is fulfilled or has been observed, and can also decide whether or not a contract should be made or held valid. So in that sense, faith and religion appears to have little to do with it.

Whereas in KL, royal marriages are conducted in the Sept of Baelor, and given validity not only by the ruling family, but also by the High Septon.

[Eira Seren]

On the matter of the king giving his permission, I think this is where Martin deviates from real history, and no, it doesn't appear that they needed Aerys permission, or else he would have said no to all the powerful alliances growing aroubd him, (i.e. Stark/Tully, Stark/Berantheon), and Aerys took the Lannister heir out of the mix as well.

So after my last post, I saw yours. Given what I wrote, do we see Rhaegar (if he did marry Lyanna) choosing to do so as part of seizing power from Aerys? Because normally princes probably wouldn't get to choose their bride.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

On the matter of the king giving his permission, I think this is where Martin deviates from real history, and no, it doesn't appear that they needed Aerys permission, or else he would have said no to all the powerful alliances growing aroubd him, (i.e. Stark/Tully, Stark/Berantheon), and Aerys took the Lannister heir out of the mix as well.

There is a difference between needing to give permission to a lord paramount and needing to give permission to your own child.

Bringing it back to Rhaegar and Lyanna...It seems clear that the Faith of the Seven is against polygamy. According to GRRM, past Targaeryans were able to get away with it because they had dragons, but current Targaeryans cannot. This suggests a marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna is not as simple as grabbing a septon to perform the vows.

That being said, the only avenue for a marriage would be a legal one, requring Aerys' permission, or, perhaps, a Northern marriage. Polygamy doesn't seem to be abhorrent to the Old Gods, based on the conduct of the Wildlings. Rhaegar certainly 'stole' Lyanna. However, would the rest of Westeros recognize that as being a 'legal' marriage when deciding someone's bastardy? It would probably devolve to how many swords the claimant has to back him up.

[Eira Seren]

There is a difference between needing to give permission to a lord paramount and needing to give permission to your own child.

Bringing it back to Rhaegar and Lyanna...It seems clear that the Faith of the Seven is against polygamy. According to GRRM, past Targaeryans were able to get away with it because they had dragons, but current Targaeryans cannot. This suggests a marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna is not as simple as grabbing a septon to perform the vows.

That being said, the only avenue for a marriage would be a legal one, requring Aerys' permission, or, perhaps, a Northern marriage. Polygamy doesn't seem to be abhorrent to the Old Gods, based on the conduct of the Wildlings. Rhaegar certainly 'stole' Lyanna. However, would the rest of Westeros recognize that as being a 'legal' marriage when deciding someone's bastardy? It would probably devolve to how many swords the claimant has to back him up.

Though had Rhaegar been able to put Aerys aside, he could have had an "official" marriage later. Henry VIII married at least one wife in secret when she became pregnant, and then held the coronation later. Though he had managed to wrangle his divorce from Catherine first (even if it took splitting from the Catholic church and granting it himself to do so, something we do not have in Rhaegar's case). What we do have, is him possibly taking the law into his own hands.

[stateofdissipation]

What about marriages that are made as political alliances, to align houses and secure allies? Any marriage made by the nobility is likely more a legal matter (it's a deal made in exchange for some form of commodity, physical or intangible). Any marriage made by royalty, even more so.

In Westeros any deal like this is considered a legally binding contract. Hence the reason Walder Frey not only takes it personally when Robb Stark breaks his betrothal, but gives Frey the perfect excuse to switch sides: contract broken, all terms are now off the table.

ETA: the reason that marriage has become an institution, and a matter for the state to become involved in (and control through licenses, etc) is because it is a money-maker for the state. As well as a means to regulate, keep the census, etc. Otherwise, who would care? Yet ministers can't just perform a ceremony and have a couple get legally married unless they fill out the paperwork and submit it. Perhaps GRRM hasn't given us the gritty details of what the Septons were required to do; the medieval Church and parish records would have sufficed in our world. The problem, imo, would be in the North, where there would be few records if using a Heart Tree. Probably someone --the lord, the Warden of the North, someone in charge would be advised for anyone who mattered.

The arrangement of political marriages and alliances are contracts and therefore legal matters. Much as Robb's promise to marry a Frey was a legal matter. Robb's legal contract to marry a Frey did not invalidate his marriage to the Westerling girl. The marriage is still a matter of religion

Verbal contracts are binding. I can make a legal contract (verbal or written) to buy a cow. That does not make it a legal cow.

I absolutely agree marriage became a state institution as a means to generate money. However marriage "became" a matter of the state. In the middle ages and in the Seven Kingdoms that had yet to happen. There have been marriages in the text. None of them involve the signing of a document. The details of marriage in ASoIaF match with the midevil practice of religious marriages. It is not that the details are not given. It is that there are no details to give.

I also agree that marriages between important people would be notable. In Ned's search of Baratheon geneology we find the only records of marriage in the books. Those were neither religious nor state documents it was simply a book of family history. Notable people were duly noted.

[Eira Seren]

The arrangement of political marriages and alliances are contracts and therefore legal matters. Much as Robb's promise to marry a Frey was a legal matter. Robb's legal contract to marry a Frey did not invalidate his marriage to the Westerling girl. The marriage is still a matter of religion

Verbal contracts are binding. I can make a legal contract (verbal or written) to buy a cow. That does not make it a legal cow.

I absolutely agree marriage became a state institution as a means to generate money. However marriage "became" a matter of the state. In the middle ages and in the Seven Kingdoms that had yet to happen. There have been marriages in the text. None of them involve the signing of a document. The details of marriage in ASoIaF match with the midevil practice of religious marriages. It is not that the details are not given. It is that there are no details to give.

I also agree that marriages between important people would be notable. In Ned's search of Baratheon geneology we find the only records of marriage in the books. Those were neither religious nor state documents it was simply a book of family history. Notable people were duly noted.

You and I seem to be saying the same thing.

What seems to be tripping me up here is how you are defining legal. A marriage contract that is binding by both parties would be, the way I'm defining it, legally binding, and thus if made by someone important, legal. If Judge Judy presided over the case of Robb Stark vs. Walder Frey, she would say that Robb broke the contract and therefore Walder is no longer obligated, legally or otherwise, to provide fighting men to Robb's cause, and is also free to break the contract himself and make alliances with other parties. Only very odd ducks would want to marry a cow. Are you thinking that an economic contract is not a legal matter?

ETA: Family bibles and parish registers used to be sufficient forms of record-keeping in a time before other more standardized documents were required?

[stateofdissipation]

I guess it depends on how you define 'legal'. Umbers and Boltons apparently still practice the Right of First Night. That would suggest that in some cases, marriages have to be approved of or declared in advance to the local liege lord. Indeed, Bolton executes a man for failing to notify him of the marriage and thus preventing him from exercising his right. That would tend to indicate that the secular realm has a vested interest in the marriage, and it's not an entirely religious matter.

Maybe it's the North that sees marriage more legally. That's where we see the Right of First Night, and it's also where we see Ned stating that the Old Gods don't really have any particular marriage ceremony, and that it is the Seven who have all the rules. Another way to look at it, are there any cases in Westerosi history where a Targaeryan king needed to give approval/permission for his children to marry?

EDIT: It seems to me that the best 'proof' for legal permission being needed to marry would be Tyrion and Tysha. I don't think there is a reference to that marriage being annulled, other than Tywin, the Lord Paramount, deciding that it wasn't valid.

The declaration of marriage to a lord would be a legal matter. However, that does not allow the Lord to perform the marriage. Your example of Bolton fits perfectly. Bolton executed a man for breaking his law. The faith or in that case likely the old gods did not need Bolton's permission to marry the man. Having an interest and having control are not the same creature.

I abosolutely agree with your assessment of history. However, the priest, septon, or the old gods did not require Targaryen permission to perform the ceremony. The marrying parties and their families did. Refer back to the case of Bolton. Had the couple and the families proceeded, the religion would have nothing to do with the legal consequences.

Tysha married Tyrion without permission. The marriage was valid. Tywin needed a septon to annul it. Yes, Tywin was the law yet he needed a religious offical to annul his son's marriage.

[Alia of the knife]

So after my last post, I saw yours. Given what I wrote, do we see Rhaegar (if he did marry Lyanna) choosing to do so as part of seizing power from Aerys? Because normally princes probably wouldn't get to choose their bride.

Yes, I think that has to be a consideration. Martin did say he would eventually flesh out the tensions between Rhaegar and Aerys.

[Alia of the knife]

There is a difference between needing to give permission to a lord paramount and needing to give permission to your own child.

Bringing it back to Rhaegar and Lyanna...It seems clear that the Faith of the Seven is against polygamy. According to GRRM, past Targaeryans were able to get away with it because they had dragons, but current Targaeryans cannot. This suggests a marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna is not as simple as grabbing a septon to perform the vows.

That being said, the only avenue for a marriage would be a legal one, requring Aerys' permission, or, perhaps, a Northern marriage. Polygamy doesn't seem to be abhorrent to the Old Gods, based on the conduct of the Wildlings. Rhaegar certainly 'stole' Lyanna. However, would the rest of Westeros recognize that as being a 'legal' marriage when deciding someone's bastardy? It would probably devolve to how many swords the claimant has to back him up.

I understand that. I was speaking to the fact that in Martins universe, he did not make the lords needing the kings approval for their matches, a factor.

A child, any child would need their parents approval for a match, because it was not actually their right, but the parents right.

[stateofdissipation]

You and I seem to be saying the same thing.

What seems to be tripping me up here is how you are defining legal. A marriage contract that is binding by both parties would be, the way I'm defining it, legally binding, and thus if made by someone important, legal. If Judge Judy presided over the case of Robb Stark vs. Walder Frey, she would say that Robb broke the contract and therefore Walder is no longer obligated, legally or otherwise, to provide fighting men to Robb's cause, and is also free to break the contract himself and make alliances with other parties. Only very odd ducks would want to marry a cow. Are you thinking that an economic contract is not a legal matter?

We are saying the same thing.

The tripping defintion will get covered at the end. Agreed contracts are legal matters. Agreed in court, Robb would have lost the case. Agreed that without court Frey was not legally bound to honor a contract that Robb had broken, Walder then made a second contract in bad faith and broke it.

Now the tripping defintion of legal. I make a contract with you to buy your odd duck and merry cow. The contract is legal. The odd duck and Merry cow are part of that legal contract. They are not then the legal odd duck and legal merry cow. They are just a duck and a cow. They do not require the legal status to be a duck and a cow. Without the animals the legal contract is pointless. Without the contract the duck and cow are still merry and odd respectively.

Now how that applies to actions much the same as it applies to items. However those examples get really trippy. If you insist i could provide an example.

[Eira Seren]

We are saying the same thing.

The tripping defintion will get covered at the end. Agreed contracts are legal matters. Agreed in court, Robb would have lost the case. Agreed that without court Frey was not legally bound to honor a contract that Robb had broken, Walder then made a second contract in bad faith and broke it.

Now the tripping defintion of legal. I make a contract with you to buy your odd duck and merry cow. The contract is legal. The odd duck and Merry cow are part of that legal contract. They are not then the legal odd duck and legal merry cow. They are just a duck and a cow. They do not require the legal status to be a duck and a cow. Without the animals the legal contract is pointless. Without the contract the duck and cow are still merry and odd respectively.

Ok, that makes sense. I know historically there have been wrangles over definitions (slaves counting as 3/5 human or some such for the purpose of population numbers for political representation), and we have things like 'illegal aliens,' meaning a person is not legally entitled to be in a country, but they are obviously a human being and don't require something to legally make them human. Still I have a sense that there could be some kind of difference between a human, duck or cow or other living being and a marriage, in terms of making it legal?

[MtnLion]

There is a difference between needing to give permission to a lord paramount and needing to give permission to your own child.

Bringing it back to Rhaegar and Lyanna...It seems clear that the Faith of the Seven is against polygamy. According to GRRM, past Targaeryans were able to get away with it because they had dragons, but current Targaeryans cannot. This suggests a marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna is not as simple as grabbing a septon to perform the vows.

Actually GRRM said that it is less likely that they can do as they please since they have no dragons, not that they are prohibited. Now, examining the real subject line, the Targaryens practiced polygamy and incest int he past, and that practice would seem less likely with the absence of dragons. But, tricky part here, there is an incest by Aerys and Rhaella that is very recent, and incest is the most abhorrent. So, it would seem that not having dragons is not infringing on Targaryen practices.

[stateofdissipation]

Ok, that makes sense. I know historically there have been wrangles over definitions (slaves counting as 3/5 human or some such for the purpose of population numbers for political representation), and we have things like 'illegal aliens,' meaning a person is not legally entitled to be in a country, but they are obviously a human being and don't require something to legally make them human. Still I have a sense that there could be some kind of difference between a human, duck or cow or other living being and a marriage, in terms of making it legal?

In our over codified world it is very hard to find examples of actions that are not legal or illegal. I spent some time trying to come up with some. I started with any action, sleeping, running, swimming and so on... The problem is that none of those are completely legal. Then i came up with passives and states of being sitting and being and so on.. again, I came up with noting that is completely legal. I even made a go at thinking or speaking. However, these when the subject of a contract can violate laws on conspiracy. In short everything is legal or illegal these days.

Then I remembered a time when wearing seatbelts was optional. In 1980, you could make a contract with me that required me to wear a seatbelt while driving. The contract would be legal and wearing the seatbelt would be part of it. If I did not wear my seatbelt, you could take me to court for breach of contract. The court could require me to pay you for breach of contract for not wearing the seatbelt. The court could only determine if I had or had not worn the seatbelt. The wearing of a seatbelt would be a matter of fact and not a matter of law. The only offense I would be legally guilty of would be breach of contract. If the state leaves the matter entirely the individudal, it is not a legal matter. It can be a matter of fact for legal matters.

In the seven kingdoms the monarchy left marriage entirely to the religions. If the faith of the seven or any other religion chose to allow a marriage, the monarchy recognized it. If the religion chose not to perform it or to abolish it, it was free to do so. Marriage in the Seven Kingdoms was a matter of fact (fact left completely to the religions) and not a matter of law.

[stateofdissipation]

Marriage is by definition a legal contract between groom and bride, by exchanging solemn vows to perform their duties. Once this is understood, one can easily see how the divorce process works. But for a church to turn away from what they considered a marriage, they need to annul the marriage; not recognizing that the vows could be voided.

Webster's definition:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

mar·riage

noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife

: a similar relationship between people of the same sex

: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

Full Definition of MARRIAGE

1

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock

c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

[MtnLion]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife

: a similar relationship between people of the same sex

: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

Full Definition of MARRIAGE

1

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock

c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

Contracts are legal agreements, and being recognized by law, means that they can be upheld in courts. Don't misunderstand me, churches can perform ceremonies that result in legal marriages, but marriages are legal foundations that determine family structure and inheritance rights.