A point I did ot see addressed is the length of the contract. If both parties stipulate that the marriage will last 10 years with renewal options, it that valid?
What about divorce? is it simple the dissolution of a contract are are there more things that need to be specified in the contract or contract addendea?
Opens a large number of potential new legal issues and problems .

Another STUPID government solution that causes more problems.
I have been telling people for years just take the word marriage out of the civil license. It is then not a license to get married. it is merely a legal contract for a civil union which defines legal rights between a couple to money, inheritance, children, access to hospital Social security etc.
Eliminating the contract completely puts children and spouses at risk.

All States and the feds should do that same and eleiminate governmental intrusion into "marriage"

Government shouldn't be in the business of trying to control marriage. Period. That goes for States and especially the Federal Government. Much of it started in an attempt to prevent interracial marriages - itself an unlawful and immoral attempt at control of individual freedom. Leave marriage to the various religious entities or the local judge.

And if there is a concern about custody, etc., a DNA test can be pretty quick and definitive...

Me an Alabamian thought this was all done a while back.
Must have taken a while to get to Gov. Ivey's desk.
Me dino has the reason I've read somewhere I can't recall.
It's so gay couples can't sue for for being denied a license.
Other problems that arise from Alabama marriages being unlicensed have taken a back seat.

Most states recognize "common law" relationships as an alternative to licensed marriage. Some are strange, like Colorado, where paying for a motel room as man and wife constitutes a legal common law relationship (it also is the basis for a charge of bigamy if one of the parties is married to another person).

Anytime lawyers get involved, the result is messy for all concerned. We chose to have a society based on the rule of law, because the rule of kings was even messier.

Awesome! Get government out.

DNA is ready and waiting for responsibility. Allows the state to assert a plan, and we can see an outcome.

Diversity is great, but not the way the clowns mean it. The way it really contributes

Well, there would still have to be rules. Such as against bigamy. There needs to be some kind of legal recognition, as children can result from such a union, and somebody has to be responsible for them; they can't be just allowed to run through the streets committing crimes and/or themselves becoming the victims of crime.
They need to be protected in some kind of structured environment.