The article is correct on a very simple basis- the government obviously cannot be trusted to be in charge of marriage because it can then be taken over by those who are out to destroy it.
Nobody should ever fool themselves into thinking that you will always control the levers of power. Hence you should be damned careful with what those levers can do.
The Left has worked for 50+ years to destroy the institution of marriage, and will continue to do so as long as it remains in the public sphere.
Back during the administration of President George W. Bush, I always said that you should not grant any power to Dubya that you would not be happy to see wielded by Hillary.
I had no idea there was an even worse possibility out there...
Because a society of weak families needs a much more powerful government than one with strong families. The extreme example is the tribal society where nearly everything is provided by families, the government only providing protection between the families and from foreigners.
Better that government have a little power to enforce strong marriages than a lot of power to replace them.
Which is exactly what happens as those functions MUST still be provided.
This is a tough political issue because the media sells more advertising in a society of weak families.
Since nothing can be done about that I suppose we might as well enjoy the ride to tyranny as RR suggests...but I laugh at any 'libertarian' who supports this.