> Marriage vows are meaningless in a non-religious context.

Since marriage was a legal contract of the government before the Church got involved (originally, at something of arms length) in blessing marriages, and because it remained a legal contract enforceable through the civil courts even after the Church got deeply involved, I don't think that's even a little bit true.

It may be true that various modern concepts like no-fault divorce have made specific legal consequences of violating the express or implied promises in marriage less significant in the modern world, mutual promises have meaning even outside an enforcement regime, and the historical precedent of a non-religious enforcement regime demonstrates that the religious content is not essential to meaning even if you view meaning as requiring an external punishment structure.

I downvoted you for your bias about marriage vows being meaningless in a non-religous context.

It may be difficult for the religious to understand, but atheists and agnostics can certainly be as moral or more so as a religious person. Those of us that are not religious can derive our morality from valid sources other than religion, including real life. Humans do not require morality from a higher power, and to assert otherwise is to assert your own bigotry.

That's fair, but I just don't see why anyone would allow a "vow" to have any hold on them in extreme situations unless they felt some cosmic thing were being violated. There is certainly no legal or even significant social pressure to stay with a spouse at any cost, so what significance does breaking the "vow" hold? Not being true to oneself? Then you're sort of your own god, willing to punish yourself for something everyone else is readily willing to forgive you for.

I can't imagine someone making a personal vow to pay back their mortgage at any cost, when they're legally allowed to walk away. Even if it meant the total destruction of their future.