Marriage should be privatized

This is my first debate on here, so sorry if I don't understand the procedure. However, it looks like some people focus on semantics in order to "win." I'm not here to "win," but to come up with the "truth," as Plato intended arguments to do. Definitions: Marriage Privatization is the idea that the State should have no role in the institution of marriage. I am arguing in terms of a Democratic State that values separation of church and state. First, let's look at this from a religious perspective. To all religions, marriage is a spiritual ritual. Therefore, why do religious couples need the State to approve of their entirely spiritual contract? After all, the State has no role in religions (we are assuming that separation of church and state is a premise), and the legitimization of marriages are done in temples/mosques/churches, for to the religious, you are married when you perform a religious ceremony, not when you sign a government paper. Government involvement seems to be a holdover from a time when religion was ingrained in politics, but since this is not a value of democracy, tradition isn't a legitimate reason to continue State marriages. Next, from a secular standpoint, how does society benefit from government-sanctioned marriages as opposed to private marriages? I don't believe it does. Marriage is essentially a legal contract, which could easily be replicated outside of the government. Even better, the contract could better serve a couple's personal needs. In terms of benefits the State gives married couples, what is the purpose? From what I can think of, the tax-breaks that married couples get is to allow couples to have more money to spend on raising kids. If this is the case, then marriages should only be given to those who are committed to having kids. Since this is not the case, marriages are hypocritical in a sense. Another reason that marriages could be an interest of the State is that it promotes social stability by allowing one individual to live off another individual. Yet, how does this increase social stability, for when a divorce occurs, which is likely statistically, then the dependent spouse will be screwed. Of course, marital contracts somewhat mitigate this issue by requiring alimony, but this can be replicated in a private contract. Next I will argue in terms of pragmatism. Even though the State may have no reason to regulate marriages, that doesn't mean that it would be better if they didn't regulate marriages. The reason that it will be better is because privatization would reduce marriage as a symbol for commitment, which is an arbitrary cultural construct. It would also reduce the tension against homosexuals seeking State marriages. Also, in terms of marriage as a social symbol, it is in fact less idealistic as opposed to non-legal long term relationships. That is, the practical reason of marriage is that it makes the process of divorce less hectic. In a long-term non-legal relationship, there is no contract that will reduce break-up tensions. Therefore, it seems that subconsciously marriages assume that there is a possibility of divorce, while long-term relationship doesn't (i.e. if a couple buy a house and they are married, their property will be "fairly" divided at a divorce trial. However, if an unmarried couple buy a house, they have to assume they will be together forever since they don't think they will have to deal with splitting property up after a break-up). Sorry if my views seem scattered or full of logical flaws. I do better arguing against points since I intuitively think my views are rational (of course, I know this isn't always the case, so I need to hear opposing arguments first in order to see which of my views aren't rational).