Sure it would exist, and sure it would have meaning — again, not everything is a legal matter.
Moreover, why not let civil suits settle the matters such as inheritance?
Besides, government or a controlling religion/authority has always had to rule on marriage, society cannot function without it, that is why the Romans, the Greeks, the Apache, New Guinea headhunters, people that we have never heard of, all had to have marriage laws, property, children, inheritance, warrior deaths in service, marriage law is not something that politicians cooked up a 100 years ago.
Ah, but now you're conflating civil government with religion; I have never asserted that marriage was not to have a definition, or that there was no authority which could define it: merely that such authority was not the civil government's proper purview.
Besides, why waste time on such childish LIBERTARIAN silliness anyway. DON’T WASTE TIME IGNORING ACTUAL POLITICS AND REAL LIFE AND CURRENT LEGISLATION AND ELECTIONS BY TRYING TO PRETEND THAT MARRIAGE WILL BE REMOVED FROM LAW AND GOVERNMENT IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO OR 20 ANYWAY, THAT ARGUMENT DOESN’T EXIST, AND QUIT PRETENDING THAT IT DOES.
Who's ignoring politics? I've done some work challenging [or trying to] contraconstitutional statutes and I've put some thought into an solution to the immigration [amnesty] bull.
That post made no sense at all.
While your current fight is against marriage, today, now, your arguments seem to be about some fantasy world, in some sci-fi future or something.