Later, France created a very powerful form of non-marriage civil union (the PACS) and saw it become incredibly popular with straight couples.
The described scenario in France means that you can have a religious marriage if you so wish; an official contract-signing 'event' out of necessity.
Makes sense IMO - not a government's job to tell a church who is or isn't allowed to marry under their religion.
since some sort of legal status is required for many
purposes in most countries
I have no need to redefine people's religion if they willingly separate it from the state.
There are actually "religious" organizations who for a small fee will give you a certificate to act as a minister to perform a weddings, no dogma required. I believe these are accepted in all states.
In my state of Colorado, a couple can marry themselves without the need for any official from the state or religion. Couples marrying themselves are free to ask a friend to stand in as an informal "official" during a ceremony, but legally, they sign the marriage certificate as having married themselves.
In the US the question of gay marriage is really about the government recognizing the it and giving gays and lesbians the legal rights and responsibilities found in marriage. Most church's will continue to be against it and not perform such ceremonies. Although a few, such as my own Unitarian Universalist have been advocating for gay marriage for decades.
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.
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.
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.
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.