[gpvos]

That's the difference between France (and many other European countries such as the Netherlands) and the US: here, the official cannot be a religious minister. You first have to get married by an official from your municipality, and only after that is it legal to get a religious marriage (or anything else that carries the name "marriage" but is not the official government-recognized marriage). Because of the separation of church and state, the official marriage cannot be done as part of a religious service, only in a civil ceremony (which can be very minimal).

[dublinben]

That isn't very different at all. The religious wedding ceremony is not legally binding in any way. You must file for a marriage license in your local jurisdiction, and have it completed by your officiant, whoever that may be.

[gpvos]

Largely, the same goals are served, but the symbolism is a little different. In the US, the moment when the marriage becomes official can be during a religious service; in the Netherlands, it can't.

[x0054]

That sounds like discrimination in the other direction to me. In US you are given a license and you can choose who officiates that license. If you are not religious, you can have a Judge or a government official officiate your wadding. If you are religious, you are free to use a minister of your choice. This way neither side is discriminated against.

From what you are describing, in EU you HAVE to be married by a government official even if you are religious. That's the wrong attitude to take. To each their own, let the people choose.

From bureaucratic perspective the important part is that the state is aware of the "social contract" two people made between each other and there is a witness who witnessed the "execution" of that contract. That's all. Who that witness is, as long as they are trustworthy, shouldn't matter.

[kiiski]

In a civil ceremony you're married in the eyes of your state, and religious communities don't have to recognize it.

In a religious ceremony you're married in the eyes of your god, and states don't have to recognize it.

They serve a different purpose, and it makes no sense for a social contract in one community to carry weight in the other.

[bjelkeman-again]

You talk about the EU as if it is one legal jurisdiction. We in fact have 28. In Sweden you can get married either by a government official or by a vicar in the church (but only apparently a vicar of the Church of Sweden).

[x0054]

You right, I should have said Netherlands, because I was replying to that specific example by the parent comment, and after doing some research, it looks like EU is all over the place on this topic.

[melvinmt]

I've been married in the Netherlands and it's no problem to have the city official be there during your (religious) wedding; you just have to pay them a bit more to show up ;)

[refurb]

In the US, the moment when the marriage becomes official can be during a religious service

Not really. Most folks I know, even the ones who got married in a church, were technically already married when they signed their marriage certificate at city hall.

I won't claim to be a marriage expert, but I don't think things are all that different from the Netherlands.

[throw_away]

I wonder what happens if a couple gets a license and then decides not to go through with the ceremony when the time comes. Are they still married? Or do they have to file for a divorce? Are there provisions for an 'annulment' from a legal perspective?

I guess there are actual annulments, but I always thought of those from a religious perspective, not a legal one. I can't fathom that the requirements are the same as presumably the religious one stipulates no intercourss.