I think the problem is simply multi-layered.
With a marriage, I enter into a "deal" with the state: I relieve it of certain care obligations for my partner, and in return, it gives me some "carrots". Of course, this makes my partnership somewhat more binding than if I live "in a common-law relationship". I allow everyone to carefully consider whether they want it that way.
One "carrot" is, for example, in the event of a partner's death, that I stand significantly better as an heir. And really significantly better than a partner to whom I can bequeath something testamentarily but who always has to pay much more than a spouse. Not to mention a widow’s/widower’s pension. And these are simply sums that are a big deal when it comes to a shared house.
We marry exactly for this reason and will, in case of emergency, conclude a marriage contract that will hopefully make a never-occurring separation easier. We have long since decided to live as a couple and would not need this state "blessing" for ourselves (the church one even less), but if we can better secure each other with it, then we do it.
I have never understood why so many women agree that HE is allowed to build up wealth/property, but they should not participate in it. This happens very often, and to be honest, I am completely baffled every time how, sorry for the expression, utterly stupid so many women are. A classic: he buys lasting assets (furniture, car, etc.) that, of course, both use — clearly — but his name is on the invoice. In the case of real estate, he is the owner. She covers the costs of the running household because: she usually does the shopping anyway, which is much more practical.
In case of separation? It’s all his; her share has been eaten up. After years, she is left with nothing in her hands, but he was only able to increase his wealth/property because she covered all the ongoing costs.
And this has crossed my path more than once. And the women always found that okay (at least until the separation *harhar*). And the men see it as a matter of course. "I earn more, so I buy the more expensive things!" That’s how people also sell it socially. I could go ballistic every time.
I can understand if one party contributes much more equity, already owns the land, etc., that in the case of separation one might want to say: I own xy% of the house, my partner only v%. That’s legitimate, but that can also be documented. Still, I want to secure my partner in case something should happen to me as the "majority owner." Even more so if there are children together.