[Mrs. Don-o]

In the 19th century, say, there were good argments for being against civil marriage altogether. But now in 21st century America, abolishing civil marriage would mean abolishing automatic inheritance for spouses, and various insurance and taxation benefits. Maybe you want to do that, but it would under many widows'/widowers' economic security and possibly force many into poverty.

Maybe that would be worth it? I don't know. Real questions.

[marron]

abolishing civil marriage would mean abolishing automatic inheritance for spouses, and various insurance and taxation benefits. Maybe you want to do that

No. No way.

I was thinking in terms of the informal arrangements families have always made, taking in orphans or nephews or grandchildren and raising them, taking in family members or friends who had no place to go, but who then become essentially members of the family.

At one time people understood and respected these kinds of informal family arrangements but in the modern era you run into legal issues involving schools, medical care, and the like. I've been through it several times over the years and have had to finesse it various ways.

The kind of "legal space" to define your own household may or may not be practical in the modern era but the need for it is there, anyone who has informally "adopted" people into their families for whatever reason has run into the kinds of problems I'm thinking about. This kind of thing was becoming less common for a few decades but is returning, you are seeing it again more and more.

Thats what I was referring to. But as for marriage, no. Government has no right or authority to try to re-define marriage for all the reasons you refer to and for more basic moral reasons too. On that I'm with you.