Brooks in the New York Times promotes marriage that is something that is good for everyone. He regards it as a way to promote long term relationships, which begs the question of why the institution of marriage is needed to promote relationships when there is nothing about the institution that enforces that commitment.
Brooks' notion of marriage is based on what he thinks marriage ought to be, not what it is.
These days, people will stay together if they are "committed" to each other. When they get tired of that "commitment", for whatever reason or for no reason, they will cast it aside, marriage or not.
So, I ask, what is the point? Marriage is an institution that is no longer worth defending.
Conservatives lost the battle on marriage many many years ago. There is no point in kvetching about the mop up operations.