Marriage is like privacy — requires mutual consent recognition, so it doesn’t violate consent. It excludes all non-consenters (which they are happy about), but also excludes consenters who don’t recognize that two consent-structures are having a very private conversation—such consenters are actually consent-violators. So it’s a good exclusion. It only includes consenters, and only consenters who are not consent violators. If a marriage is not doing that, Anarchism B has crept in: Recognition vs. Violation: The Two Anarchisms
A consent violator has no right to be included. They can get over it.
A “no marriage” world (the way you’re talking about things) means EVERYONE is treated as a consent violator, when they did nothing wrong, and (at least some of them) just want to recognize consent in a very private conversation. Need to know. Ya know?
What’s your password?