No, you said:
There's no value in the word "marriage" itself. You've semi-got the right idea with allowing universal rights under partnership laws, but my stance has always been taking it a step further: a system allowing for familial construction/deconstruction, and modular rights granted therein. Monogamy, polygamy, adult and child adoption, etc. Eventually you come to realize that given the diverse forms a family can take, the word "marriage" either becomes esoteric in its description, or gets practically redefined based on its historical associations.