My view is based on the ancient Norse and Germanic views (which I believe, though I cannot prove, is in accord with those held by the pre-literate Hellenic tribes).
In that view, individuals as such do not generally exist. Rather, the individual is connected by the hamingja, a soul shared by all members of the family (living and dead), to the rest of his family and ancestors. So a marriage, metaphysically speaking, involves the separation of the bride from her hamingja and family, and the integration into her husband’s family and hamingja. At the same time, the two families of the happy couple exchange gifts, which creates metaphysical bonds (a point worth considering before one makes offerings to a spirit, IMO).
The separation is accomplished by the purification of the bride, which are essentially a form of ritual death. The reintegration is done through the exchange of vows over mead sanctified by the hands of the bride (women were considered intrinsically holy in Germanic thought) and made in the presence of not only the family but also the ancestors, brought into the hall by previous drink offerings (toast and libation). Also, reintegration is accomplished by the marital act and morning gift, themselves an exchange of gifts between wife and husband (this was also to create a bond between husband and wife, hopefully leading to the blossoming of love) and further by the introduction of the new wife to the family hearth (this was often literally, “Hello hearth, this is so-and-so, my wife, she is now a member of the household and family”).
Given this integration, children born of the couple will have a healthy soul, as opposed to illegitimate children, who have a weaker soul, split, as it were, between two hamingja. This presumes the recognition of the child and naming (traditionally nine days after birth) by the father, for, as women create the body, it is the power of men that elevates an animal spirit to a human one and brings it into the family. Without this, or prior to it, infants can be exposed, for they were not seen as truly human. When I was younger, I was strongly pro-life; internalizing this older (and, I think, better) worldview necessitated a change in some deeply held beliefs. But I digress.
It should be noted that in this worldview love is seen as a result of marriage, not a motivation for it. I admit that the modern idea of marriage as being primarily about love is very strange to me, but perhaps that’s due to my age, and a certain inclination towards traditionalism.