We agree. There is one more thing govt could do though - it could go full force and destroy traditional marriage entirely by putting other forms of cohabitation on the same legal plane. That's what 'gay marriage' does. The coup de grace.
Government has a role in the civil law, deciding matters of property, child custody, and the like. These matters are dealt with in the civil court outside of marriage already. Why should a government definition of marriage be required to determine deposition of joint property or what is in the best interests of a child? Your question itself refutes your claim that this is outside of marriage. "joint property" makes not a whit of sense outside the context of the legal definition of the marriage contract. Court involvement *defines* marriage in a legal sense when it rules on custody, property, whether wifes are responsible for a husbands tax evasion, etc.
Marriage is a sacred covenant. If one is religious, it is a promise made to God. For those who are not, it is at minimum a promise made to the spouse, and to any subsequent children. What can government add to that? Yes marriage is sacred and a covenant. What government can add to that is protecting those promises made to God as promises made to other humans as well. This is not much different than other contract law in a sense, but of greater import to our civilization.
Government insinuation into the institution of marriage can only lead to mayhem. Government will not limit access to divorce, so divorce becomes the norm. This again is self-refuting. Divorce is a *legal process*. Govt defines when and how divorce can happen and rights under it!
Most people who get a civil divorce consider themselves divorces, with nary a thought to the solemn promises made to each other and to God. The government has said they are divorced, so that's all there is to it. A judge has replaced morality. Of course but you missed the obvious. The Judge has replaced morality because the Judge is defining "right" and "wrong". So why let the Judge define "right" and "wrong" in ways at total variance with the real right and wrong? Why not make it harder to get divorces than to break a car lease? Why not insist that if a woman initiates a no-fault divorce the man keeps custody? Its an absurdity to throw up your hands and say "oh just keep the government out of it", it is and will be hip-deep in these matters anyway.
Government displaces. It does not coexist. Gays have been getting married for the last fifty years, but it is the governmental sanction of those marriages that will elevate them to equal stature in the eyes of society. Yes, I made that exact point! This is not about "allowing" gays to cohabitate or even to call themselves married or 'partners' etc. They can do that today. This is about giving them co-equal rights with traditional marriage partners in the family courts. It means possibly that a divorced couple where one woman runs off with a lesbian partner, the judge will give as much weight and 'right' to that lesbian couple to have custody as the father himself.
the real tragedy is that the courts have usurped the democratic power of people to decide these matters, so errors and injustices wont be easily corrected.
People will do stupid things always. People will make poor choices and a compassionate society will always pick up the pieces. It is beyond the power of government to prevent people from doing so. The destruction that results when government tries far outwieghs any benefit derived. This is why you need George Will's book. It's a counterweight to the libertarian myth of government non-involvement in matters of human habits and behavior. It is *not* true that it is beyond the power of Government to influence behavior. WHATEVER Government does shapes our culture, shapes our habits, shapes our ideas and actions. Government can influence more or less marriages, divorces, out-of-wedlock births, child abuse, pedophilia, and a host of things. The state can act in ways that improve our habits - this creates fewer messes so there is LESS PROBLEMS for Government to fix. For example, our welfare reform in 1996 encouaged more marriage - well, children are more likely to succeed when in married households vs being in single-parent households. This reform is the exact opposite of what you propose, since it is "meddling in marriage", but the good benefits of it are fewer criminals and juvenile delinquents down the road and LESS WELFARE DEPENDENCY today.
So we end where we started. We agree that Government has attacked traditional institutions and undermined them in the courts, the law, and culture. The proposed 'hands off' solution though is neither realistic nor practical. There is the possibility of reforming Govt to support, not undermine, traditional institutions by patiently working through the laws and fixing the errors of judges and lawmakers. Supporting working institutions like traditional marriage DOES WORK and is a vital part of staving off Socialism and keeping Goverment limited.