I wonder if this question has been posted before. I am of the opinion that marriage belongs with the dinasours. Children are not given a choice of which surname to choose, when the union breaks, which happens in an alarming rate, children are tossed to and fro adults fighting over their custody, whereas if there was no marriage in the first place the children would not even have been born, with so many opharns in the world.
Is the end of religionism giving marriage its final rest?
The urge to pair-bond, whether it's formally initiated or not, is almost universal. I think that something like marriage will continue. The religious mythos of the conjugal union is undergoing a purge and I think that's a good thing.
I beg to differ on your point that "if there was no marriage in the first place the children would not even have been born." If you really think that, you should go tell it to a number of my friends who wound up with children born out of wedlock with their girlfriends. Children happen because of sex and sex happens because of the biological imperative to procreate. Sure, we, as a species, have certainly found ways to prevent pregnancy so that sex carried less risk of bearing a child, but those ways are not entirely full proof.
That all being said, marriage also has little to do with the children, since it has more to do with the two individuals interested in pair bonding than it does their offspring. Sure, there is always the inevitable collateral damage of children getting hurt in some way from the separation of parents, and responsible parents of those children would do well to minimize the damage and find ways to help their children cope, but ultimately all decisions boil down to the two adult individuals interested in forming a marriage. After all, I would think that the rise of the marriage equality movement would prove this second point among others.
Socially, culturally, and financially, there are benefits to marriage and little have to do with religious reasons.
Single parent families are generally at a disadvantage, but not always. An unmarried partner living in the same household can also be beneficial. I think usually, the more supportive adults available, the better off the family, but that's not always true, either.
I'd just say that civil union/marriage is more likely to evolve (and possibly diversify) than it is to disappear.
Considering the number of people who want to get married who are not involving religion in the process at all (plenty of secular marriages out there), I don't think that marriage would go away, even if religion were to vanish overnight. Religion may have co-opted marriage, but it did not create it, nor is marriage dependent upon it.
Is love still relevant? If not, then no, marriage is pointless. But if you love someone so much that you want to spend the rest of your life with them, then yes. Because it's the equivalent of putting the bike in the bike rack and locking it in because you're going to be there for a long while.