The Death of Communication

When I read 1984 my favourite part was the appendix, "Principles of Newspeak". I believe I've described elsewhere the concepts of reducing vocabulary significantly, eliminating shades of meaning and creating words that are easy to say without paying attention to what you are saying and meaning. The purpose of all the modifications was to make any unorthodox thoughts (from the perspective of Big Brother) unutterable. Or if uttered to be nonsense words and sentences to an orthodox hearer. Orwell believed the government would cripple language to subdue the proletariat. Interestingly the exact reversal is happening. The masses are using glutted language to cripple the government.
I read an article on a lawyer who is working on creating legislation so that people can have short-term marriage contracts. I understand the perspective, some 70,000 divorces are sought each year in Canada. What I don't understand is why what she is describing has need of legislation or filing under "marriage". Doesn't it already exist as "common-law" or "dating"? So now gay people who have managed to get the legal right to marry can say, "I just got married." To which someone will reply, "cool, how long of a contract though?"
The over saturation of definitions in a single word create words without meaning. If a word can mean multiple things in the same context you might as well use a different word. Unless the purpose is simply to obfuscate or to outright confuse the hearers.
The same issue is present in pronoun use and gender identification. If gender is something that can be objectively defined then it should remain a classification and be seen on licenses and birth certificates. If it is not objective but is subjective and ineffable then it should not be used to classify and should be done away with. If my thinking that I am a girl is just my opinion and not based in my chromosomes and sex organs then how do I know that is what I am? What I perceive as "feeling like a girl" might actually be what a rabbit "feels like". But a rabbit can't tell me what it "feels like" and neither can another girl. Either gender is objective and should remain a physical distinction or it is subjective and should be removed altogether.
(I'm trying to form my thesis on the basis of language alone and not on moral or political grounds. If I have failed to remain impartial perhaps it is that it tends to be moral and political vocabulary that are most affected by what I describe.)
Do we want words to mean less as in Orwell's satire, or more as in contemporary English? Either extreme is equally devoid of meaning, and either extreme, when it reaches completion, is irreversible.