There is an old English saying to the effect that there is one word of advice about marriage: don't.
I do not believe anyone is ever better off for having attempted marriage. Though i do not condemn those who come to the necessity of divorce, every divorce is a tragedy: if not, the marriage itself was not ever taken seriously.
Now, marriage is the main part of a courtship ritual. It exists so that the ritual has a main part. And we need courtship rituals.
Whether you believe we are animals, or merely that our animal nature is the part of us that we do not always have control over, we must look at the behaviour of animals to know what to expect without a courtship ritual. If you decide that one of the sexes is bad, you have a problem with Creation itself, and have a choice as to whether you intend to spend your time in it, making other people miserable.
It is not a problem in itself to have a problem with Creation.
To be an animal is to kill and never be in the wrong. Thus we need marriage.
Back to the year 2021, for the purpose of having the institution at all, it must be codified as an Act. Unless we are to gut the religious institutions by which the ceremonies have come about, and remove the power of pronouncing two people married from religious functionaries, we need to regulate the pronouncers such that it is clear that both parties are willingly engaging to be wedded.
Firstly, then, we must not lose sight of forced marriages, which the law must do its utmost to prevent.
Then, the law must not assume literacy, and it is best to have family and friends, of both parties, present as witnesses of the willingness on both sides. Unless you intend to live in a box, you have a duty to recognize that you're not the only couple getting married, and your doing so protects the institution when you are aware of simple logical facts.
If the legislature is weak, court marriages are the likeliest route for forced marriages!
Now i must state some obvious facts. Marriage is inseparable from Law. In order for law to mean anything, language must be treated with the utmost respect.
Marriage customs are inherited from our culture and religion. If you believe in the separation of church and State you may take the stance that they aught never to have been wedded. Howsoever that may be, the state of marriage is no different from a civil union.
Not believing the church should exist is different from believing that it should be eradicated. In the latter case you would deride all marriage customs, if you were consistent. In the former, you would recognize that one must either take to brainwashing, or recognize that not everyone is the same as you; to live and to let live is to tolerate views, and behaviour, which may be repugnant to us.
To take a church to court--to the State--because its policies exclude you, is to drive a stake in the ground that you believe churches should be eradicated. The rest is obvious and is left as an exercise for the reader.