There should be TWO processes:

#1. >IF< you want a religious ceremony, or not, it's up to you and that religion. It isn't required for #2. By the same token, the government does not have to grant any rights under #2 to anyone going through this step.

#2. The person-to-person contract stating that person A is "married" to person B and that all property, medical decisions and so forth are to be handled as such. Until the formal dissolution of the contract.

So, the government cannot tell you who you can or cannot "marry" in the "church" of your choice. You could "marry" your car if you wanted to.

But the government does not have to recognize such "marriages" as it recognizes "marriage" now.

Unless you fill out the correct forms.

And if it is a contract, why does the government care with whom you contract?

As long as said person can legally enter into this contract.

So, the Catholic Church is only going to perform certain marriages (divorced is a big no no).

But the government can enforce a contract between two people no matter how many times they've been divorced.

So, "marriage" as a sacrament is still as religious as ever.

And person-to-person contracts are still enforced, the same as we used to.

Get the Government out of the Church.
-AND-
Get the Church out of Contract Law.

There are minimum age restrictions.

As long as s/he is capable of signing a legal contract (usually at age 18, I think).

There are, or at least used to be, medical restrictions, i.e. must not have venereal disease.

I don't see why the government needs to "protect" me from this. As far as I'm concerned, this is another example of government being too involved in the bedroom.

There are consanguinity restrictions, e.g. double first cousins cannot marry.

Marry? I don't see why not. Children? The risk is high (depending upon direct blood relationship) for genetic defects. Is it the government's job to prevent genetic defects?

Does the government take an interest in the reproductive habits of other carriers of "bad" genetic code?

Clearing the past religious clutter from the contract would be a great idea. You could, in advance, assign financial responsibility for any children conceived during the contract period and so on. You could even do away with "prenuptial" contracts. What would be the purpose of a "pre-contract" contract? If either party has specific pre-existing resources that they do not wish to have included for consideration in the contract, then they can include the required verbiage in the "marriage" contract.

Requiring monogamy is possibly a religious restriction.

True. I don't see any reason why multiple husbands/wives (even multiples of both, one guy marries 3 wives, and two of those wives have other husbands) couldn't be handled under contract law. It would make for some VERY interesting cases in the event of a divorce.