While I can understand how people feel Statism can devalue this kind of commitment ceremony I am not so quick to judge as I understand that there is another side to a marriage ceremony.

I too had a wedding with no family or friends save a couple my wife and I met a few months before our wedding that we required as witnesses. Now many Anarchist will be thinking to themselves, "My commitment doesn't require the state" or as @Kyriacos says "I love you so much honey, the government should ensure it."

These kind of feelings ignore @amy-goodrich 's very good reason, governments make it easier for married people to stay together when travelling or moving. And while Anarchy may be a great idea, we still have to deal with governments so long as they control the borders.

Amy said they decided to get married because they could see some benefit, not because she needed the state to ensure they stayed together.

I married my wife because she was not a native of my country and if I did not she would be required to go back. Does that mean I needed the state to keep me and my wife together? NO! I married her to spite the State for trying to meddle in our affairs.

Despite the reason for my marriage being out of fear that the State would force me to separate from someone I love dearly, I too found that I enjoyed the commitment ceremony in spite of the states meddling and made the most of what turned out to be a very very special day.

Thanks for your post Amy, I really can understand how this turned from being a logical descision about traveling together into the best day of your life so far. You've inspired me to one day share more of my own story with you all here on steem

Cheers