"Taking Marriage Private"

With respect to Michael's recent post, "Taking Marriage Private?":

First, MOJ readers interested in the subject matter of, and questions raised in, the post might also be interested in this paper, by Joel Nichols, on "multi-tiered marriage."  Interesting stuff.

Second, it seems to me -- and, certainly, I invite correction by experts -- that if Professor Coontz is suggesting (and perhaps she is not) that, "for most of Western history", marriage was a matter of merely "private" concern, a matter with which the relevant public authorities were not concerned, then her suggestion is not supported by the historical record.  It has, it seems to me, "for [all] of Western history", been the case that communities have regarded marriage -- its formation, incidents, nature, dissolution, etc. -- as (among other things) a matter of community concern.  The fact that the Church recognized as "licit" marriages contracted in a haystack does not, it seems to me, indicate otherwise.

Finally, it seems to me that an argument against (what I take to be) the "let's privatize marriage" suggestion might go something like this:  Because marriage is at the heart of family -- which is the first and vital cell of society and about whose health the public authority will, as part of its obligation to attend to the common good, care -- the public authority ought not to (completely) privatize marriage.

Other thoughts?