Replies

It’s an important bulwark of the Faith to keep this connection between the Church and the sacraments with the state. Separation between Church and state never covered this, nor was it intended to mean this.

If we were in a Catholic state.

However, we are not.

Pope Leo XIII addressed the problem of involvement of a secular state in the Sacrament of Matrimony in his 1888 encyclical, Arcanum Divinae. He decried the State's involvement:

Neither, therefore, by reasoning can it be shown, nor by any testimony of history be proved, that power over the marriages of Christians has ever lawfully been handed over to the rulers of the State. (§24).

He identified civil marriage with the prince of darkness:

16. Yet, owing to the efforts of the archenemy of mankind, there are persons who, thanklessly casting away so many other blessings of redemption, despise also or utterly ignore the restoration of marriage to its original perfection. It is a reproach to some of the ancients that they showed themselves the enemies of marriage in many ways; but in our own age, much more pernicious is the sin of those who would fain pervert utterly the nature of marriage, perfect though it is, and complete in all its details and parts. The chief reason why they act in this way is because very many, imbued with the maxims of a false philosophy and corrupted in morals, judge nothing so unbearable as submission and obedience; and strive with all their might to bring about that not only individual men, but families, also-indeed, human society itself-may in haughty pride despise the sovereignty of God.
17. Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.
18. Hence are owing civil marriages, commonly so called; 'hence laws are framed which impose impediments to marriage; hence arise judicial sentences affecting the marriage contract, as to whether or not it have been rightly made. Lastly, all power of prescribing and passing judgment in this class of cases is, as we see, of set purpose denied to the Catholic Church, so that no regard is paid either to her divine power or to her prudent laws. Yet, under these, for so many centuries, have the nations lived on whom the light of civilization shone bright with the wisdom of Christ Jesus.

(You might wish to read the whole thing at the link above)

You will note the casualness that I gave to the civil "ceremony," when I said (in post #15): You can consider going to the JP just a licensing thing. To get the State to acknowledge what has already happened in truth.

I am not suggesting a dual ceremony. I am merely suggesting the signing of papers. As a civil marriage is no marriage at all: it is just a set of signatures on a piece of paper that grant certain financial benefits to those who sign. It's not worth much more than that.