On its surface this sounds like a way to speed up the lefts “be careful what you wish for” process shipwreck.
Wonder how other (not 3rd world) countries handle marriage license and civil marriages.
If the state no longer licenses, then the only way to be married is through the church.
What if the couple doesn't believe in Christianity and won't subject themselves to what they are convinced is an outmoded religious marriage ceremony that they find offensive to their atheistic non-belief? If neither religious nor civic ceremony is acceptable to the couple what's left, a handshake and a kiss before a witness? Seems to me that they would at least want something more than that to memorialize their marriage, not to mention the questionable legal validity of such a union.
Actually, “marriage” would just be another class of contract whereby individuals enter into a relationship for mutual benefit. There would be certain state (and I guess federal) laws governing this type of contract and there would probably be a model contract (considerably more explicit than the current one page marriage license) developed for use. Refocusing on marriage as strictly a private contract would also probably introduce the opportunity for introducing special clauses that were unique to that particular marriage. Say, the permissibility of each party having outside sexual partners, minimal sexual intimacy requirements, comingling of property and finances, minimum child bearing requirements, minimum support requirements for common family activities (including children), special contract default and termination conditions.
A lot of this already exists in current law and government practice. The difference would be that, whereas before the government inserted itself into the process early with the screening of applicants for marriage licenses, actually issuing the same, appointing outside agents as officials to solemnize marriages, and cssting itself as a principal enforcer of marriage law, all these actions would now occur in private transactions in law offices (presumably...maybe car dealerships, loan agencies, whatever) and the government would only be notified after the fact when the marriage contact was deposited with the County Recorder. Disputes over contract execution would have to be decided through arbitration clauses in the contract or as lawsuits in the state circuit courts.
Transacting the marriage would take place in an office setting; sheafs of documents would be passed around to be reviewed by the contracting parties and signed, various certificates (health, financial, etc.) produced, fees paid, and the proceedings witnessed and notarized. It would be about as emotional as say...a home closing.
Afterward, the notarized contract would be deposited with the County Recorder’s Office and the transaction reviewed to ensure its compliance with existing law.
Anyway, that’s how I imagine this concept of extracting the government and churches from actually performing marriage ceremonies might be implemented.