This does not make sense since the government (courts) need to have specific definitions in order to adjudicate cases and contracts. A simple definition of marriage nationwide will suffice.
Marriage is the underpinning of civilization and the government must have a vested interest in protecting the institution in order for society to survive and flourish.
There wouldn't be any marriage cases or contracts to adjudicate. They can use the definitions for friend, acquaintance, room mate, colleague, agreement, personal service contract, etc. in order to resolve any problems. People can use the same concepts to establish their civil arrangements. If they want to get married for religious reasons, that would be fine but there would be no civil impact.
“A simple definition of marriage nationwide will suffice.”
You mean like they did in California? The inability to agree on such a definition is what prompts my proposal.
“Marriage is the underpinning of civilization and the government must have a vested interest in protecting the institution in order for society to survive and flourish.”
There ya go. Like I wrote, “...if a basic public interest substantiating the necessity of government intervention in marriage is proved to exist, let that interest be the foundation and limitation of any government intervention.”
But so far you've only stated an opinion. Offer proof for others to believe that marriage is the underpinning of civilization. Or, for now, let it just be an unprovable assumption.
In either case, offer proof for others to believe that the government must have a vested interest in protecting the institution in order for society to survive and flourish.