The man and woman being married are the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony. Canon law allows marriage to be contracted without the presence of a priest if no priest will be able to be present within one month. To your question, I believe the state would have no right to forbid that marriage. That contradicts ecclesiastical law as Canon law gives the ages of 16 for men and 14 for women as minimum ages for entering into a valid marriage, and the parents of the girl consent
If the SSPX refused, the couple should try other trad groups. If they all refused, I think they would be able to validly and licitly marry, in the presence of witnesses only, according to Canon 1098

correct

Well, I was confirmed the first time by Bp. Thomas Kelly (circa 1984).  Bp. Kelly was consecrated by Bernadin in 1977.  We will just forget about the first time.

The second time I was confirmed by Fr. Wathen.  I cannot remember the year, but it was probably legit.  Fr. probably used the oils consecrated by Bp. McKenna as they knew each other.

When I was in seminary I was conditionally confirmed by Bp. Williamson.  If I am not validly confirmed, then Houston we have a problem.

Bernardin was a bad guy, for certain, but was he not a bishop? I don’t know. I don’t think I’d worry about Confirmation #2, but Bp. Williamson, it should put any doubts to rest.  This sounds like my St. Augustine like spiritual journey to tradition. I left off Catholicism when I left the nest at 18. But I had a yearning for God. You name the Protestant denomination and I’ve probably been there. In the course of my journey, I got conditionally baptized four times in order to “make a public declaration for Christ.” I did this reluctantly after baptism #2, in ignorance of what baptism is! There was nothing wrong with my pre-V2 baptism as a baby! The others were objectively sinful, but I consented in ignorance. If anyone says I need another Catholic baptism, I would know now he is a heretic! 

I was the one who downvoted you in relation to the below post. While I agree that to sit in to sit in a provocative manner is disgusting. However that is not normally why men would sit with their legs apart (to an extent). It is normally because to sit with ones thighs touching can be quite painful for men. Men sitting with their legs apart (to an extent) is quite common and should not be mistaken for provocative behaviour.
As a previous poster said:


I agreed with the rest of your post for the most part though.

No offense taken. Thanks for the explanation. I guess you are not in an environment where there are men who are simply lewd, who DO quite deliberately sit so as to display themselves.  It seems to have originated as part of the rap/hip hop culture in NYC. I first saw it in about 2000, done in the subway by young men of a certain race, but now imitated by other races eager to lower themselves. I could get very descriptive to prove my point, but I won’t. 
I guess I see the world so deteriorated to the point where there’s a more clearly defined line between good and evil. Many have fallen so low that they are no longer tempting. Those who still adhere at least to Natural Law are disgusted rather than tempted.  Evil is overt, its practitioners proud of their hatred for God and everything made by and for Him.

Well, I was confirmed the first time by Bp. Thomas Kelly (circa 1984).  Bp. Kelly was consecrated by Bernadin in 1977.  We will just forget about the first time.

The second time I was confirmed by Fr. Wathen.  I cannot remember the year, but it was probably legit.  Fr. probably used the oils consecrated by Bp. McKenna as they knew each other.

When I was in seminary I was conditionally confirmed by Bp. Williamson.  If I am not validly confirmed, then Houston we have a problem.

Pardon me, but that is absolute spucatum tauri.  (What they did, not your narration of the matter.)

An abomination.

I know that now, but was so poorly catechised that at age 15, I didn’t know it was actually an abomination to God. The “liturgy” was written by a student committee and taught us by a nun in a pants suit. At that time, we didn’t even have confirmation names, and everyone’s “sponsor” was the priest whose name I can’t recall. He wore clerics at least when I saw him. There were five one hour classes in the evening we had to attend. We received copies of very basic prayers and the script to the “sacramental theatre.” We had to memorize the script and it was optional to memorize the prayers. Truly, I’m thankful I was truly ignorant, Mine was the generation almost entirely deprived of our faith by evil men. My parents were unable to attend  because they were in Florida cleaning out the home of my maternal grandfather. He abandoned his family when mom was about age two and my parents were the only ones able to do the job. Unfortunately, I think my parents would have gritted their teeth and gone along with program. Their generation was brought up to obey authority. Beyond memorizing the catechism word for word, reciting it back followed by getting confirmed, that was all that was required to be a good Catholic. It’s really no mystery how they pulled off Vatican II.