Polygamy was the norm in much of biblical times, but in the times after Christ, attitudes changed, and humans twisted and changed Religion to suit their ever-changing ideals and mores. Saying that a religion defines such-and-such as being a marriage and nothing else is intellectually dishonest and self-indulgent.

Marriages, and what should be allowed, should be determined by civil authorities, not religious ones. If people want to have a Catholic Marriage, or a Protestant Marriage, or a Mormon Marriage, or any other flavour of religious blessing of a union, then feel free. But the civil authorities and regulations should have complete control over what is an allowable marriage. People have ...

Polygamy was the norm in much of biblical times, but in the times after Christ, attitudes changed, and humans twisted and changed Religion to suit their ever-changing ideals and mores. Saying that a religion defines such-and-such as being a marriage and nothing else is intellectually dishonest and self-indulgent.

Marriages, and what should be allowed, should be determined by civil authorities, not religious ones. If people want to have a Catholic Marriage, or a Protestant Marriage, or a Mormon Marriage, or any other flavour of religious blessing of a union, then feel free. But the civil authorities and regulations should have complete control over what is an allowable marriage. People have been combining the two in one big ceremony for so long, they forget that it's actually two very different things happening; a civil contract, and a religious oath.

If people want to limit who can take the religious oath, that's fine, but religion needs to keep its grubby mitts off the civil contract.