I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. Or, that a 'marriage' began as a political/financial institution designed to make it easier for inheritance rights.

>>>>If marriage is a fundamental right as opposed to a privilege I can see this argument coming up in the future based on the 1st and 14th amendments.
>>>>
>>>>>Why don't we ever see one woman marrying many men?
>>>
>>>Marriage is a religious entity, so I can see how an athiest or agnostic might think it's okay to marry a ______________. (fill in here)
>>
>>Then I take it you object to the fact that a judge or a jp or the captain of the ship can perform a marriage?
>>
>>Marriage was a religious entity once upon a time, but that has long since been usurped by the state.
>
>I'd rather think that marriage is older than current religions. They have usurped it, just like they have inserted themselves into pretty much any important moment in their flock's lives - to the point where there's only ONE exclamation of surprise left in English language.
>
>Marriage became a state's business because the churches couldn't come up with a central registry - each held to its part. And then the unreligious couldn't get married at all, or they had to lie to do so. They were coerced into pretending to be believers, at least for the occasion.
>
>I'm seriously thinking of cleaning this out of my life and death - for instance, when it comes to whatever terminal services (pun intended) may be put together when I'm gone, if anyone starts to speak and mentions any of the religious stuff, nobody gets a dime if the guy isn't knocked out on the spot. Same would go for any speaker of politics which would go contrary to my views, but that's secondary.