In In re Marriage of Cantarella (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 916, the court concluded a marriage was valid even though the marriage license was not registered with the county due to the parties' decision (possibly for tax reasons) not to resubmit the license for registration after it was returned to the parties for a technical error. (Id. at pp. 919-920, 924, fn. 8.) The Cantarella court reasoned that the core element of a valid marriage is the parties' consent. (Id. at pp. 923-924.) The license and solemnization requirements were directed at ensuring that the parties had the capacity to consent and that they were actually consenting; for example, the license disclosed their ages, and at solemnization the parties declared that they accepted each other as spouses. (Ibid.) In contrast, the registration requirement, which was the duty of the officiate, not the parties, did little to ensure the parties had validly consented to the marriage, but rather served a recordkeeping function. (Cantarella, supra, at p. 924.) The Cantarella court concluded that although the statutory scheme explicitly excused only a nonparty's failure to comply with the statutory requirements, failure to comply with the registration requirement did not invalidate the marriage "regardless of who bore the responsibility for the nonregistration (whether a party or nonparty)." (Cantarella, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 925.) Cantarella reasoned: "In the rare instance where a party failed to register public evidence of the marriage, such failure might be inadvertent or involuntary (as in the case of a rejected certificate) or might instead indicate a lack of consent at that time. We do not believe the Legislature intended a marriage to be thereby rendered invalid. True, the keeping of accurate and complete marriage records benefits the public. But this goal pales compared to the societal importance of recognizing the validity of marriages to which the parties have consented. To hold that a failure by a party to register a certificate voids a marriage would invalidate 'marriages already solemnized in this state and would, among other results, affect the marital status of the parties, their property rights and rights of inheritance.'. . . It would 'negate the manifold fiduciary and legal obligations the parties understood they were incurring,' due to 'a technical misstep along the way.'" (Id. at pp. 924-925.) Cantarella further stated that its conclusion was consistent with the statute that permitted a party to purchase substitute documents in the event there was no record of the solemnization of the marriage. Cantarella observed that, significantly, this curative statute did not provide that "in the interim period between the marriage ceremony and the filing of a . . . substitute certificate, the marriage was invalid." (Cantarella, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 925.)