Marriage
For readers who dislike our definition of who are "really" married, here are the supposed alternatives.
This is currently just a sketch. I hope in due course to add more details.
"The State"
"They are really married if the dominant regime says they are married."
This circular definition of what we "really" mean when we say that a couple are married is so obviously useless that it is easy to push an anti-Paternalist off it, but when their other arguments fail they tend to retreat, if only in the back of their mind, to this one, to Big Brother, as a hound returns to his vomit.
"The Church"
"They are really married if the official Church says they are married."
This differs little from the previous definition. The dominant gangsters are replaced by their priests.
Vows
"Marriage vows are ... based upon Western Christian norms. They are not universal to marriage and not necessary in most legal jurisdictions. ... Eastern Christians do not have marriage vows."
Wikipedia.
The oldest reference I can find is the 1078 Sarum Rite, shortly after the 1066 Norman Conquest.
In other words, the idea of marriage as a mutual promise of bride and groom was an invention of the then-rising and now-global European (what Spengler calls "Faustian") culture.
That does not prove that it is wrong, but it means that this views advocates are the eccentrics, not we Patriarchalists.
"Free Love"
"They are really married if they are currently in a mating-bond."
This is the most robust of these alternatives, and in the West is in reality the most influential one, even among those who profess one of the others.
Such a bond is called "a relationship".
Such a bond may happen to end, for it is a habit not a choice, and if it does they are free of any duty that might be regarded as going with it, and free to seek alternatives.