The current situation has nothing whatsoever to do with the "death of 'God'".
Indeed most/all of the really dangerous people in todays world are advocates of back-to-the-past traditional religiosity. Witness the troubles caused all over the world by right-wing traditionalist advocates of Christian-ism, Juda-ism,and Islam-ism.
Such traditional religiosity was of course always defined by those who either won the culture wars of their time and place, and/or had the political power to define and control via either religious or secular law the acceptable norms of behavior in their time and place.

Laws which outlawed either Protestantism or Catholicism in various times and places. Laws such as those against the absurd concepts of "blasphemy" and "heresy". Laws against apostasy. Laws which called for the imprisonment and (even) execution of homosexuals. Laws in some places in the USA where the only acceptable method of sexual intercourse was the "missionary position". Laws which made it a crime punishable by death for miscegenation -witness the Ku Klux Klan. Laws which made it compulsory for everyone to pay taxes which were then given to the "official" state religion(s).

Meanwhile, although her work applies specifically to the USA the work of Stephanie Coontz via her books Marriage A History; The Way We Never Were; and The Way We Really Are, take the wind out of the sails of the back-to-the-past traditionalists.

.

Dear Eric (the author),

.

You wrote:

« … over the past two hundred years or so in western countries, "love" has become the preferred mechanism for sorting men and women into couples in preparation for marriage … But before that, things were quite different … As a social institution, the purpose of marriage was to provide the nucleus of the family. »

“Nucleus of the family” ? Coming from a declared “historian” such as yourself, that is a euphemism, my dear Eric. Quoting Stephanie Coontz, an historian on marriage, the BBC indicates :

[ For the Anglo-Saxons and Britain's early tribal groups, marriage was all about relationships - just not in the modern sense. The Anglo-Saxons saw marriage as a strategic tool to establish diplomatic and trade ties …

This all changed with the differentiation of wealth. Parents were no longer content to marry their children off to just "anyone in a neighbouring group". They wanted to marry them to somebody as least as wealthy and powerful as themselves, Coontz says. "That's the period when marriage shifts and becomes a centre for intrigue and betrayal."

During the 11th Century, marriage was about securing an economic or political advantage. The wishes of the married couple - much less their consent - were of little importance. The bride, particularly, was assumed to bow to her father's wishes and the marriage arrangements made on her behalf. ]

Wikipedia indicates :

[ Historically, in most cultures, married women had very few rights of their own, being considered, along with the family's children, the property of the husband; as such, they could not own or inherit property, or represent themselves legally.

"Coverture" was a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights and obligations were subsumed by those of her husband, in accordance with the wife's legal status of “feme covert”. An unmarried woman, a “feme sole”, had the right to own property and make contracts in her own name. ]

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Might I add that it is a common feature in the animal kingdom for males to compete for the right of access to females for mating purposes.

The instauration of marriage civilised this process.

Political rulers used marriage to create strategic alliances and consolidate their political power.

The aristocracy, the elite, the wealthy and other privileged classes used it, and continue to do so, in order to avoid natural dispersion and depletion of their earthly estates and privileges throughout succeeding generations.

The clergy seized on the institution of marriage as a means of increasing their influence and control over their "flock" of submissive "sheep" and its future progeny, thus assuring the prosperity and perpetuity of their religions.

As for marriage based on love, allow me to observe :

Love, defined as "unconditional selflessness" (Jeremy Griffith) or "to will the good of another" (Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas), is rarely, if ever, a motivation for marriage. What most people mistakenly call "love" is usually some form of "emotional gratification and/or sexual attachment, attraction, admiration, devotion, sense of achievement or well-being, harmony, friendship, personal pride or form of narcissism, a passing fancy, an instinctive impulse, or some other self-serving urge...".

Few are capable of true love or even aware of the correct meaning of the word. Love and marriage are , of course, totally independent of each other:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14890#256883

.