It contradicts the purpose of it. Why should an elected official the taxpayer funds be involved in the conclusion of a contract between two private parties? You haven't answered that. I found that it is only justified today to give a substitute to the spiritual dimension and a sense the commitment doesn't have, the number of divorces shows, to the non religious marriage which is, you could agree rather hypocritical. Therefore the involvement of an elected official in the conclusion of such a contract can only be explained, looking back in time at what may have justified it, the rivalry between the clergy and the secular militants eager to offer a marriage of equal status in the seriousness of the commitment which in secular times makes little sense?
Nothing today opposes the end of the legislation and elected officials involvement in the conclusion of marriages, the legislation to only be involved in mandatory or illegal stipulations of these contracts vulnerable parties may be subjected to?