Reply #27: 'Marriage' has always been about property and entitlement.

[TahitiNut]

Lost in the overly-emotionalized rhetoric is the historical perspective. We seem cognitively lost in our romanticism and religiosity. Going back to the 'god-given rights' of monarchs, there's been an unholy alliance between civil authority and supernaturalism (i.e. church and state). Consider the question of 'legitimacy' in ascendancy to a throne. Consider the rejection of Papal Authority when it ran contrary to Henry's libidinous (or progenistic?) proclivities. Monarchies relied for millenia on the notion that their authority was God-given and their (legitmate) progeny inherited such authority, along with their properties.

Indeed, marriage itself was a question of chattel ownership -- the (purported?) "father" ceding possession, along with other tangible considerations, of the female (human property) to another male. The burden of "husbandry" (a term still used to refer to the care of livestock) was often offset by dower rights. This is all about property. The female progeny were regarded as mere burdens, inferring some subsequent diminution of property as their breeding abilities were marketed to prospective "husbands".

In this regard, the 'church' is a mere AKC.

If it weren't for the considerations of property and inheritance of property and power, marriage wouldn't exist. The church's power to recognize marriage is a secular power, not a spiritual power. Even monogamy itself is about such secular considerations.

There's absolutely nothing inherently "religious" about marriage. It's an age-old political myth.