Get government out of the marriage business completely and leave it to the churches. The government can concentrate on defining civil unions or whatever other pseudonym they wish to apply to it.
That bird has flown most likely, the state is never giving up the institution at this point, for two simple reasons. One, it provides massive control of the culture. Two, the statists, leftists, and homosexualists need a way to punish those who will never buy into whatever impossibility the state decides to call marriage at the time, and they don’t have a way to do that without the state involved.
Pope Leo XIII warned about the danger of the state’s involvement 130 years ago.
#1...IF EVERY relationship can be deemed a "marriage" -- then NOTHING is "marriage."
What? Siblings can marry, Vig? Pets? Group marriage? Why let "govt" restrict the # of partners, Vig? Govt shouldn't set any standards for age restrictions? Any child can "marry" oh libertarian one? And a harem? Polygamy now brought back, eh Vig?
#2...As long as a govt proposed huge safety nets for broken families [this week a PA paper researched a mom of two who earned $19,000 a year and determined she has access to about $82,000 of govt funding each year in terms of cash, staples & services]...then govt has an obligation to reinforce healthy families.
If govt would 100% stop footing the bill for broken families, then at least this secondary argument wouldn't apply. But it does apply precisely because of how we taxpayers foot MOST of the bill for experimental relationships.