More of the libertarian "get government out of marriage" nonsense.
In a world where anti-social behavior was restrained by fear of disgrace, by fear of ostracism, by fear of "what the neighbors will say" civil society did not need the state to define marriage. We no longer live in such a world. We no longer live in a world where reputations last a lifetime and people spend all their lives in one place. Government defines the duties of marriage because society has no power to force men to shoulder familial obligations they have grown weary of. Government defines the duties of marriage because it has a societal interest in protecting women and children.
So because government welfare programs have destroyed the social compact in many areas of the country, we need more government?
Marriage without government would be a contract between two individuals, and one of the few proper roles of government is enforcing contracts. If a man fails to shoulder his contractually-defined familial obligations, he can be sued for breach of contract.
I'm not sure it's a convincing argument to say we should revert to a time where people lived in fear.
Before there was government, there was marriage.
People are married because of promises made to and before God. Not because they have the permission of people or groups of people with guns.
I can't think of a better handle than "the Sham" for a "FReeper" who believes that government should usurp the preprogatives of society.