Ah, yes. The old, “We’ll always be together, Baby!” gambit.
If in some places the marriage licence is no licence at all but is a marriage contract of some kind, that would make sense. A marriage licence, the real kind, authorizes you to go and get married, just as a driver’s licence authorizes you to go and drive. But signing your driver’s licence is not driving, and signing your marriage licence is not getting married either.
Right. The short version is that the banns were replaced by a monetary bond requirement in which family members pledged that there was no legal impediment to marriage, to a state oath requirement pending a marriage license.
The tradition is still seen with the line “And if anyone knows any reason why these two shall not be joined in matrimony, speak now or forever hold your peace.” A common misconception in movies and in popular culture is that this is the time for an old boyfriend to step forward and say, “No, this is not right, sweetheart! I love you more than he ever could! You are making the wrong choice! Be with me!” The time for that was before she agreed to marry the other guy.
This statement is made for anyone who may know of a legal impediment to the marriage as you noted.
“Solemnize” in practical terms means “Be an authorized government witness to the contract the two of you are entering into”.
In California, solemnization is defined, or at least described, as follows:
Pennsylvania law also requires solemnization, but it does allow the couple to do the solemnizing themselves if there are two witnesses:
Pennsylvania law does permit a couple to solemnize their own marriage. The historical reason for this is that that’s how Quakers do it, and if Pensylania’s laws aren’t going to accommodate Quaker understandings, well, whose law will?
(Other states, I think, take the view that the clerk of the meeting is doing the solemnizing, even though he himself thinks he’s just facilitating and witnessing the solemnisation by the couple.)
The point is, though, that there has to be an event, an actual happening, in which the couple consent to marry one another, in the presence of witnesses, one of whom is (usually) a solemniser or officiant of some kind. Up in post #20 UltraVires suggests that the Magic Moment is when the solemniser says “I now pronounce you husband and wife”, or something similar. It’s not; it’s the actual exchange of vows/promises by the couple, in the presence of witnesses and in compliance with any other conditions imposed by law, that constitutes the marriage. The “pronouncement” by the solemnizer, the signing and filing of the completed marriage licence, etc, etc, are all steps taken to register, recognise, etc the marriage which has resulted from the exchange of vows.
That’s what Lee Marvin thought.
Well, now we are arguing over minutes of time. 
I agree that once the legal requirements have been met, the couple is married. However, we don’t know that all of that has happened until the officiant makes his pronouncement.
it’s interesting how different countries handle it.
In Japan, any ceremony is simply a show, and people are recognized as being married when they file specific paperwork to the city office. Both people need to sign.
An uncontested divorce is also handled the same way. When my ex and I got our divorce, we simply signed the form, with witnesses, and filed it.
The other misconception is that that line actually appears in wedding ceremonies. The line only comes from ‘The Book of Common Prayer’ - the Episcopal/Anglican liturgy and it’s successor ‘Common Worship.’ No other church would use it. It has remained essentially unchanged since 1662 (which explains why the line is still there.) In practice though, even at Episcopal weddings it is usually skipped. When it’s not, if there are any objections, you are correct that the objections are legal objections only. A priest who hears an ‘I’m still in love with you’ objection would most likely say, “OK, sorry for your luck, sir/miss” or “That’s not a legal objection.” and continue with the ceremony-provided of course that the two betrothed are still willing to do so.
Read the Wikipedia article on Quaker weddings for a whole different take on how it’s done.
Note that there is no officiant for such weddings. Just a few states are okay with marriage licenses with no officiant. Usually the others will accept a signature of a suitable church elder/witness. Also, some Friends don’t like to file for licenses at all so common-law marriage was their friend, but generally isn’t an option any more.
There’s a long history between the church and governments who insist on doing things the “right” way.
Reading many of the state requirements for common-law marriage (my SO and I have been together for 25 years, so I’ve had reasons to do research), I’ve felt that the salient feature was actually the part about intent and agreement to be married. You can call each other husband/wife, live together, share bank accounts, etc, but if you don’t agree to be married, there is no “You’re now married, we don’t care if you want to be or not”.
My So and I use the words husband/wife occasionally, because it’s a term that most people understand, because “boyfriend”/“girlfriend” sounds pretty silly at our age, and is way shorter than “The person I’ve been living with since before you were born, and that I share finances with.” But there is no state in which we would be married for using those words for each other, because there is no intent to be married.
This is true, but also in a way ends up begging “What IS ‘married’ anyway?”
Intending to be married to each other doesn’t make sense unless everyone (the two people plus the government) already agrees on what that is.
Marriage is in the eye of the beholder. If two people think they’re married and the government disagrees with them, then as far as the government (and law) is concerned, they’re not married. You can be married according to the government but not according to a religion, or according to a religion and not the government (see: historical mormon polygamy).
The idea that you need a certificate or whatnot to be married just comes down to what your particular government requires before it’ll consider you legally married. Two people can simply announce they’re married without bothering to get the government to sign off on it - the hard part is getting anyone else to believe you.
In the context of the OP (Can we make it valid without involving the government?), the answer is therefore a flat-out No.
Wellll, some governments will (or used to) recognize certain marriages without requiring you to file paperwork, due to laws recognizing common law marriages and such like. In such cases you could theoretically get government recognition without formally asking for it, presuming you met whatever other qualifications they had for it.
Though it’s my understanding that in the area the poor OP is presumed to be in no such common law laws apply.
Right, but even if she could get everyone to agree that they’re married, she’s got another problem, which is that her boyfriend won’t agree that they’re married.
Right - and where she is, “everyone” (i.e. the government) has officially stated that they definitely won’t agree. So that leaves her being the only one who thinks she’s married, and everyone-else-including-boyfriend saying no. Not an encouraging sign.
Amusing anecdote:
Way back when I was “seeing” the woman who is now my wife, I was helping her put up an outdoor shed. Of course the nails and such sometimes bend, and then you curse, because that’s part of it, but the cursing made her nervous. Anyway, after a couple of bent nails and curses, she pops out with “Don’t worry, I didn’t marry you for your building ability”. I just looked at her and said “You sure didn’t”. She had the grace to turn beet red.
We did really get married a year later, but that was a case where she was already thinking in her own head that we were married, but nobody else would have agreed.