Witness at a secular wedding

The question is theoretically.
If you want it to be realistic, then I ask what is your policy?

My policy is to have kosher witnesses. For several reasons:
1. You are supposed to allow a person to marry according to the law of Moses and Israel. If he decides to be a criminal, that is his problem (he will be called a wicked man and will die). It is like saving Sabbath desecrators on Sabbath in the work of the Torah (they will not keep many Sabbaths, but the majority of all the poskim have determined that they must be saved. You allow them to keep Sabbaths, and what they decide to do in practice is their problem).
2. Transparency. You are not supposed to make decisions for a person in his place. You can of course refuse to marry him, but not tell him that you are marrying him and not do so.
3. In terms of bastards, it is a problem in any case (but of course this is a very rare case), but in terms of offenses, if he is not obligated to pay the penalty, his offenses are not offenses.

What does it mean that if he is not obligated to pay the fine, his offenses are not offenses?

Between a baby who was captured and raped (they thought they were raped).

Why are bastards a problem anyway?
If there is no kiddushin, then there are no bastards. Right?

And regarding transparency, you can tell him that you are not marrying him in a halakhic marriage, so that if one day his wife cheats on him, then at least her children will not be bastards.

Yehuda, see here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%AA-%D7%97%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94/

Reuven,
But if there are kiddushin, there are bastards. I explained my opinion that kosher witnesses should be taken.
Your suggestion regarding transparency reminds me of the Midrash on “I am Esau your firstborn”. Forgive me, these word games do not help in any real sense. When you lie, you lie. And in general, from this point of view it is better not to marry anyone in a kosher marriage and thus bastards will be completely avoided. After all, even among secular people, bastards are an extremely rare matter (because contraceptives are used to avoid giving birth to someone other than one's wife).

You can hear your words in this article about a baby who was captured. But what you wrote there at the beginning, even without a baby who was captured, the fact that he does not believe at all defines that he does not actually have the name of a transgression is very strange, and of course it is not appropriate to study this as a deed without a deed.

The words of the Maimonides in the Epistle to the Yemen: that this Torah will not be able to escape and be saved from even one of the seed of Jacob forever, neither he nor his seed nor the seed of his seed whether willingly or unwillingly, but he will be punished for every mitzvah and commandment that he nullifies from the commandments, that is, from a mitzvah that he does, and he will also be punished for everything that he transgresses from the mitzvahs that he does not do. It is unthinkable that, being a doer of the graves, he will not be punished for the easy ones so that he will give himself up to them. But Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who gnashed bones, will be punished for the calves with which he sinned and made Israel sin, and he will also be punished for nullifying the mitzvahs of the Sukkah on Sukkot. And this is the main foundation of the foundations of the Torah and religion, and they taught him and Esau insisted on it.

I agree with every word of Maimonides. What does this have to do with my words? I agree that every Jew is obligated to all the commandments and cannot escape them, and I agree that he will be punished if he violates them (only intentionally, of course).

Because I understood from your words that the offense of a convert who does not believe at all is not called an offense. But if Maimonides is talking about a convert and says that he will be punished for every detail, then it is considered an offense.

I explained what is different between the old and the modern convert.

The rabbi's words imply that a secular person who asks a rabbi to perform a ritual is intended to perform it according to the law of Moses and Israel.

As far as I understand, he only wants a ceremony with a rabbi, and he really doesn't care if it is done according to the strict rules of halakhic law.

Don't the words of the Rambam in the Epistle contradict his words in The Teacher of the Confused and the Changer of Torah?
According to him, the purpose of the commandments is to direct and prepare the soul (or intellect) for the attainment of wisdom. A person who has committed serious sins distances himself from wisdom, does not attain it, and does not merit the world to come.
In this situation, minor offenses have no meaning, since he is not actually punished for them.
A person who has attained wisdom despite not keeping the commandments (Aristotle, for example) is certainly not punished at all.

I don't know how to respond to contradictions like this. I don't know where Maimonides got the purposes of the commandments from. But he certainly believes that all of them must be kept, and some of them are apparently a basis and preparation for engaging in wisdom. Therefore, without them, engaging in wisdom is incomplete.