Then why should the state care if they lived together?
It's one thing to have both people say we agree to split property like this it's another to say you have to wait and jump though a lot of hoops to get divorced.
Consider two people that want a divorce, but can't really afford separate households at this point and don't want to sell the house when the economy is bad. Granted this is not the "normal" path but plenty of people get divorced without hating each other.
I would be very surprised if the rule, in some states, of being apart for a year to finalize a divorce, has anything to do with religion/church. Most likely, it is a relic of legislation attempting to define "litmus tests" on which the judiciary can make decisions.
Keep in mind that with things like divorce and child custody/support, couples change their minds (sometimes a lot). Our court systems can't handle this (certainly not the costs). Over the years, our societies have required legislatures to define rules and processes for lumping everyone into a process. I don't think the state really wants to be involved in divorce cases, but there are reasons they are (property, debts, retirement benefits, child custody/support, etc).
Like it or not, state courts have to be involved in divorces. For some couples that can handle it without the courts, well, like education, they get dragged down into the mean.
It's one thing to have both people say we agree to split property like this it's another to say you have to wait and jump though a lot of hoops to get divorced.
Consider two people that want a divorce, but can't really afford separate households at this point and don't want to sell the house when the economy is bad. Granted this is not the "normal" path but plenty of people get divorced without hating each other.