I guess that depends on what you mean by marriage. Marriage exists as a secular institution even in aboriginal cultures (e.g., Amerind). Fundamentalist Christians seem to think that they can impose their idea of what marriage is on the culture at large, but fortunately we do not live in a theocracy. As a secular institution, marriage serves at least one important function: that of letting the community at large know that these two people are off the market. I think the modern phenomenon of the impermanent marriage is more a function of our affluence than anything else. Previously, when life was generally difficult, I think people were probably more careful in selecting their partners, and more committed once they did, because time was more valuable: there was so precious little of it, and you didn't want to waste it on a bum steer. As people become wealthier, they have more time, more leisure, and can afford to make mistakes. I suggest taking a look at the difference between the classes in the America of 100-150 years ago, and seeing if the attitude toward marriage, faithfulness, etc., was less rigid in the upper class than in the lower. I believe there are many benefits to a life-long commitment, spiritual as well as psychological. Also, permanence is beneficial for children - though a kibbutz-like communitarian system might work just as well. (I don't know, but I'd want to investigate it before saying that the traditional Christian marriage form is the only best for kids.) But I don't think it's something to jump into, and I think many people jump into it too young, with no idea of what they're getting into. American society, if that is the context, is a culture of alienation. Families do not have multi-generational support systems anymore, and I think that makes it harder on younger couples. It might surprise you that I tend to agree that it's not so important that you marry the right person as it is that you marry sincerely. Arranged marriages work, too. The outworking of the commitment is a profound education; where you start, in terms of getting the kind of person you (think you) want is probably far less important than most people think today. Nevertheless, I believe people should be free to do as they wish, including living with others without some form of sanction, living with many others (group marriages), etc. Perhaps if "traditional" marriage were the last step in attempting commitment, rather than the first, it would be more permanent, even in an affluent society such as ours.

If a person is non religious by nature,or does not practice the religion of their heritage,marriage is not necessary.Marriage is really a ritual,that has been around a long time.Rituals die out or change as society changes,thus the promises made in these rituals are not as prevalent as they used to be.