does society still need the state to be involved in 'sanctifying' marriage?
byork,
I'd say yes simply because when marriages go wobbly it is society or rather taxpayers' Dollars that are used to cover the stuff-ups of the "sanctified" marriages. Taxpayers fork out for neglected spouses & children etc. So yes, the State should have a say in it all.

Individual, society looks after the 'neglected', including children, regardless of the Marriage Act. State endorsement of marriage neither improves nor lessens the chances of success in a relationship.

byork,

Is that something you have explained to women you meet, especially the ones you might want to enjoy a 'relationship'* with?

Interested to know what the feedback was and what salve you use for scorched ears?

*a term used and understood by women, to their advantage. LOL

Also, what child prefers the caring State to mum and dad? You need to check just how caring the State is too and some here who have read the accounts of wards of the State and others under State care might set you right.

However I do believe that the tweaking of family law by the political 'Progressives' has resulted in numerous negative consequences which they are always reluctant to admit, of course.

State endorsement of marriage neither improves nor lessens the chances of success in a relationship.
byork,
Wanna bet ? It does both !

Onthebeach, in a couple of years my wife and I will celebrate 30 years of a happy and fruitful relationship. Neither of us ever felt the need for state endorsement. We never married. The Family Law Act classifies people in this situation as de facto married. The Marriage Act would be irrelevant were it not for the nasty bits pertaining to 'Legitimacy' of children etc. I refer to my wife as my wife because I don't like the politically-correct alternatives such as 'partner'.

byork,

My wife (dual citizenship) and I have dual citizenship children. In your case it wasn't Australia but Britain that denied their dad's citizenship to pass to them because they were regarded as ex-nuptial (or did lack of a period of residency affect it?). I take it that your wife also would not have qualified for such citizenship (dual) for the same reason, plus she may not have satisfied the residency period?

Of course there are many reasons including personal preference, why some don't seek or qualify for dual citizenship.

Concerning Australia, the C'wealth govt remedied the Constitutional impediment affecting non-nuptial children with the Family Law Act in the 1980s. In the preceding decade (1970s) all States and Territories passed legislation abolishing the status of illegitimacy and banning discrimination against ex-nuptial children.

I believe later amendments were made by States and Territories concerning equal rights to inheritance for ex-nuptial children.

While governments usually want to do the best for their citizens and their(citizens') loved ones, it gets very complicated where immigration is concerned (to take an instance). It isn't necessarily the fault of the Marriage Act and removal of that Act would have many negative consequences as well.

I am not taking sides in the argument for or against marriage. Each must weight up the pros and cons and make his/her choice and be responsible. Apart from that I reckon it is a fair comment that vastly more women want and propose marriage. Also, men do not usually march to a biological clock.