‘Marriage’ is an added word in many translations. The words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ do not exist in Ancient Hebrew.
Take ye women, and beget sons and daughters; and take for your sons women, and your daughters give to men, and they bear sons and daughters; and multiply there, and ye are not few;
Jeremiah 29:6 literal
The closest we come is with the root verb chathan.
The noun form chathunnah (#2861) is used once in Song of Songs 3:11
Go forth, and look, ye daughters of Zion, On king Solomon, with the crown, With which his mother crowned him, In the day of his espousals…
The noun chathan (#2860) means “daughter’s man”. The Father who gives his daughter, or takes a woman for his son is part-and-parcel to the definition. It is often interpreted as son-in-law or bridegroom.
This goes for the word bride as well which in Hebrew is kallah (#3618). It means “son’s woman”.
When things went wrong in a marriage context, the father-in-law was called:
Himself being brought out, and herself has sent toward her father-in-law, saying, `To a man whose are These ones, myself is pregnant;
Gen. 38:25 literal
The neat thing about all this is how there was no ‘marriage contract’ in the Hebrew nation. The father-in-law was the “marriage contract”. He provided the foundation. He was the link. Upon his word, nothing else was needed. He took women for his sons. He gave his daughters for brides. This is upside down (or right side up) from the western concept of marriage which places the son and daughter on their own underneath an authoritative power, or social tyranny, which looms over the relationship like a dark, scary alien. The modern social construct cares nothing for your relationship or companionship (unless it can garner a few bucks off it) whereas a father lovingly provides for its welfare and flourishing. No scary overlords, priests, lawyers, bureaucracies, or corrupt governments controlling or lying in wait to devour it. No contract or law ever made or enlivened companionship, it cannot.