I don’t have any objections to numbers greater than two.

I think the term “marriage” should either apply to all of them or none of them. I don’t think it’s acceptable for the law to recognize “marriage” between heterosexual couples and “something else” for others.

I think it would be acceptable for the government to stop calling all of them “marriages”, and only offer “civil unions” or whatever, but the same term should apply to all, precisely because the intent is that they are equivalent. Using separate language is just an invitation to future inequality.

The government of a free country certainly should have no role in desciding what is a sin and discouraging it. That would be a theocracy, which history shows is always a horrible way to live, unless you are a religious fanatic. I trust that is the page you hope we are all on? Sorry to ask such an obvious question, but I cant rule out any keen religious person having a contrary position on this.

I think that the best way to resolve this issue would be for the government to recognise only civil unions. Churches could then apply their form of marriage after the civil union, limit access to it with any rules they like, and call it any name that pleases them. I think it would be useful to provide for these names to be registered like company names so that no other group can use them.

Gay unions might be in the rules for some curches and excluded by others and gays could register their own name and adimit straits if they want to.

I think that there does need to be at least two people involved, or some wanker will want to marry his right hand. The government might choose to limit Civil unions to two people for reasons to do with the law and entitlements.