I can't understand why most opponents of the marriage think that it is just in interests of the state. But what about people themselves?
Marriage is obligation. Not in eyes of State or God. But in eyes of your husband/wofe first of all. And this obligation tells that my intentions are very strong - i'm not willing to live with you only for a while untill I will meet somebody else more interesting for me. And I will do it again and again. And what I will have on the end of my life?
I think that people need STRONG and LONGLASTING relations - it's in their blood. And community, society and even State should do everything to promote/stimulate all social tools or mechanisms which will force people to have STRONG relations - because sometimes they refuse to believe in that, but it is true!

I WANT TO MARRY MY CHICKEN
There are two properties of marriage.
The first is contractual: it is just fine for the state to have a model ?breakup and caregiving? contract, which any two beings (subject to state laws on ability to contract) can either agree to, or be bound by in the absence of an agreement, or which agreement can be substituted for by an agreement drawn up by the parties. If the legislature won?t fix the contract, let the courts create one (under equal protection and enforcement of contract jurisdiction), or let the people select a contract under the initiative process, and let the court test it for minority protections.
The second is spiritual: the state has no right to be involved in this, to enforce, interfere, or even confirm. The state?s only right is: if ANYONE says they are spiritually married (let them marry their dog, cat, chicken or grandchildren, spiritually), the state can allow them to use the state?s contract under all the contract provisos above.
Divorce rates are proof of the failure of the ?institution,? but also proof of the universal social ?need? for the marriage ceremony, which exists in every human society (and probably something like it in every animal society, too). We could say it is ?instinctual to marry.?
The philosophical question is: why would any rational person want to marry without a contract between them fixing what will happen when they split up? In this regard, it is philosophically interesting that some of those gay couples that got married in San Francisco during the first period when it was legalized, were just getting their ?divorces? by the time the second approval period went into effect. All the issues around property and debt division, and child custody and support, were just coming up.

p.s. such critic on marriage institution I tend to explain in conflict of generation. Critics tend to say that marriage is "old-fashion" and is not suitable to modern times mostly. Children try to find their way all the time. It's classic.
But destruction is much more easy action than creation.
OK, critics, if you are eager to ruint the marriage, what is your proposal? What should be in it's place? Only being together? Is it enough talking from long-term perspective? Talking about psychology of the children, who grow without dad or mother?

I do not know if marriage is in our blood; or if it is instinctual. Presumably, however, our genes are every bit as selfish as those of a turtle, toad or chimpanzee. They 'want' to propagate themselves and assure replication over time. It is not conscious, this selfishness, and to say genes WANT to do anything is only metaphor---a 'way of talking' about the process that spawned evolutionary biology.
Au contraire,people (and by association)governments are selfish. They think in such terms because they have self-awareness---consciousness, we have called it. And, as Mr. Savinar has illustrated, there are all of these terms of property, possessions and ownership which enter the equation. We all have our 'stuff' before and after we are married---or if we marry. And most of us want to keep our stuff, should something other than death cause us to part. Alluding to Tim's discussion about contracts, this is why people who have a lot of stuff and attractive incomes resort to pre-nuptial agreements: they are righteously selfish. And who can blame them? There are a lot of golddiggers out there---just waiting to get their paws on your stuff.
Governments have vested interests in the institution of marriage, as do churches. Societal and economic stability are their friends and the American Dream was predicated on social and economic stability. Progress, in any field or endeavor, requires it. But governments (and, generally, churches)want marriage to fall within accepted boundaries. Perceptions of deviance and debauchery drive fears of chaos and instability: if one marries one's chicken, do we have to provide the chicken healthcare; confer citizenship and the right to vote? It is complicated.
I imagine much of this and more will be discussed on your show, so I'll go have coffee now.

Why would anyone want to restrict their love with a binding agreement of any kind; shouldn't love be infinitely and most beautifully free?
=
MJA

Interesting question. Marx, for example, was a marriage contemptor. According to him (and Engels), marriage is a burgress institution, instituted by capitalists to save properties... I definitely agree ...

Bless you Kestutis and Dave, you remind us of the limitations and the shortcomings of philosophical analysis, namely that a methodology founded on rationalism can fail to take into account wonderful human impulses like love and un-selfishness. Your advocacy of considering these motivations and thereby moderating the coldness of rationality, reminds us, as I have said here before, that philosophy and poetry have the same goals, but philosophy only takes you as far as rationality can go; poetry can go further, and is more "acurate," because it depends on metaphor, and a methodology using metaphor better represents the impulses you remind us of, love and un-selfish-ness. Thanks again for the lovely reminder.

Society without marriage has been the stuff of science fiction on several occasions. It has been woven into utopian visions and egalitarian scenarios. But, as other commenters have pointed out, stability is the stuff of human progress and old habits die hard---particularly when they have been acceptably successful.
Government and its close associate, religion,are heavily invested in stability and progress, and yes, I am only repeating some of the notions already offered.
As Kestutis astutely suggested: if someone has a better idea, let him proffer it with sufficient (or at least arguable) proofs. If anyone would like to examine some fictional ramifications, revisit the books of the late sixties, written by Robert Rimmer: The Harrad Experiment and The Rebellion of Yale Marratt. These books were controversial, even for the tumultuous times in which they appeared. Your mothers and fathers did not like them and neither did your clergy and governmental leadership.
It is ironic (or perhaps paradoxical)that we feign to teach our children generosity over selfishness. We want them to be able to 'play well with others.' But, as they are growing up, they must learn an inconvenient truth: generosity is often rewarded with disdain and doormat status. Competition for position, power and prestige transforms selfishness into a virtue. If you want to make it in the world, you can't always be nice.
And if someone wants to take your 'stuff', steal your trophy wife or otherwise disrespect you, you are expected to get mad---and to get even. We talk the talk about utopia and egalitarianism. But we are taught to be ruthless when necessary. The Historionic Effect. Keep that phrase in mind.

I think that we need to get married because God wants it that way. Since God has created us, we need to listen to Him and not depend on our own logic. Having children without getting married is not good (even if King David from the Bible had children through concubines. Not all that David did was pleasing to the Lord). Divorce can be avoided when people are serious about the vows they make before Almighty God on wedding day. I can change a job if my boss is a nut but I can't change my wife if she turns out to be a difficult person to live with.

Abolish marriage. Hmmmm. Playing the Devil's Advocate: what would we do to replace marriage? The previous commenters on this post have aptly illustrated the social, economic, political and theosophical bases for the erstwhile institution. Should we change several millenia of custom and tradition? I am not saying this would be untenable, undesirable or impossible. I just wonder why we might try to do so, and, moreover, what might happen if we were able to. Looks like it will be moot anyway. Word on the street says the world will end on May 21, 2011,@6:00pm Pacific time. If this does not happen, we can take up the discussion again.
Live long enough; prosper if you find it meaningful.

marriege is something different from longlastig friendshp etc maybe because of the kind of commitment.it has a different sense even if nobody can explain.maybe a need for marrieage has a genetic root in human nature.sorry about week english

I disagree. Marriage is the foundation of family life. Families are the building blocks of our communities. Communities are the building blocks of nations. The abolishment of marriage will lead to social decay.

To Issaic Neutron:
Why would do we need to replace it? Why not allow people to associate with who they want and leave when the relationship has run it course. There is no emotional, financial or pyschological security that a person can gain from marriage or a relationship, therefore, the challenge is can a person live this life knowing that with gain, comes lost. That although life feel enjoyable and bearing with someone, this may not always be the case in my life. That my wife or husband may comfort me now but there may be some time in the future where they may not. To me, there is no need for replace, just free association with people. We are not here to be owned by culture and tradition to act in a certain way.

To gift
Some may say that we have social decay despite people still participate in the tradition of getting married. If marriage is the foundation for a family which creates communities and nations, then how do you explain the decay in society? How do you explain people polarized by race, class, politics and economic and they both fight one another to gain either justice among most or to take advantage of the majority. Social decay is not due to the lack of family but it does say that we are not producing human beings who can live in the world peacefully. It does say that family is not the priori for a stable nation. In fact, I tend to think that most of the things that are told to me that are important are mere distractions from the things that are more important. Marriage, to me, is one of those distractions. Nation, community and family are all ways that a person tries to secure wealth and stability in life. If you are rich person, marriage may be important but if you are poor, why should marriage be such a big deal?